ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Foreign Students

David Evennett: What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

David Morris: What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

Mark Pawsey: What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

Theresa May: Our fundamental reforms of student visas include a rigorous new inspection regime for private colleges. These tough new rules, coupled with robust enforcement action by the UK Border Agency, mean that more than 450 colleges have now lost their right to recruit international students under the points-based system. Only colleges offering a genuine, high-quality education will be able to sponsor international students in future.

David Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply and commend her for the work she is doing in this area. Does she agree that the news last week that one in five colleges has lost its sponsor licence status shows that the accreditation scheme set up by her and her Department is working to stop the widespread abuse of the visa system?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what I have announced today is just the start. All private colleges will have to go through that rigorous accreditation system by the end of the year and those that fail the system will no longer be able to bring in international students.

David Morris: I am pleased to hear that the Government are successfully shutting off immigration through bogus colleges with the accreditation scheme, and I was glad to hear the answer to the previous question.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has mentioned the accreditation scheme for colleges, but of course we are going further in taking action against individual students as well as restricting their rights. We have introduced new rules on English language and we have restricted students’ rights to work and to bring in family members. Next April we will close the post-study work route that has allowed graduates two years’ free access to the labour market here in the UK. We want to make sure that those who come to study are coming genuinely to study and not to work.

Mark Pawsey: We do need to cut out the incentives for people who abuse the student visa route, but there will of course be cases when a mature student wishes to be accompanied by their spouse and children of school age. What are the Government doing to prevent abuse
	of the system by those who see this as a loophole through which they believe they can bring any number of dependants into this country?

Theresa May: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are taking action against students as well as against colleges. We are restricting the right for students to bring in family members. Only postgraduate students at universities can bring in dependants and we have changed the rules so that only those at universities and public colleges can work while they are studying. That means that we can continue to attract the brightest and best to our academic institutions while ensuring that we get rid of abuse.

Keith Vaz: I hope that the Home Secretary was not too busy at the weekend to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that was published on Friday—specifically paragraph 44, which expresses astonishment that the UK Border Agency has been unable to tell us how many students have been deported for breaching their leave and that it does not recognise the term, “bogus college”. Does she not think it extraordinary that the main agency dealing with these matters does not accept a term that she, I and the whole of Parliament have always used to describe such colleges?

Theresa May: I think that what matters is not the term we use but the action we take. That is why action is being taken to ensure that those colleges that have not been offering education to students are no longer able to bring in students and that we get rid of abuse in the student visa system, which has been a problem in this country for far too long.

Jim Cunningham: I support any measures that root out any abuses in the immigration system, but what discussions has the Secretary of State had with universities such as the university of Warwick that have expressed concern about student numbers from abroad because they rely mainly on such students to exist?

Theresa May: Before we put our policy into place, we had significant discussions with representatives from the university sector. We continue to talk to universities about the impact of the student visa system that we have introduced, and that scheme ensures that institutions that are offering a genuine education are able to bring in the brightest and best students, but it is up to them and us to make it clear that students are still able to come and learn at our universities from overseas.

Gangs

Karl McCartney: What steps she is taking to address antisocial behaviour by gangs.

Ian Swales: What steps she is taking to tackle gang culture.

Theresa May: The Government’s approach to gang culture is set out in the “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report, which I outlined to the House last week. This marks the start of a cross-Government
	programme of work based on five areas: prevention, pathways out, punishment, partnership working and providing support.

Karl McCartney: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to addressing gang and youth crime. Does she agree that the problem cannot be solved by Government alone, but that parents especially and local voluntary and community groups have an important part to play? Will she tell me what is being done to support communities to fight back?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that the Government recognise not only that this issue goes across various Government Departments, but that we need to work with the voluntary and community sector. In February I committed £4 million for the communities against guns, gangs, and knives fund. That is already supporting the work of more than 200 grass-roots projects across England and Wales that are working with young people, their families and local communities. In the report that I presented to Parliament last week I made a commitment that half of the £10 million of funding to tackle gang violence will go to the non-statutory sector.

Ian Swales: When a gang member leaves home armed with a knife, they do so with the ability to commit grievous bodily harm or even murder. What can the Home Secretary do to reduce the number of knives on our streets?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, we are tackling that in a number of ways. First, we have introduced changes in a new knife crime offence, which was introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last week to tackle it from that end. At the other end we have made money available to the Ben Kinsella fund, and Brooke Kinsella produced a very good report for the Government, going round and identifying projects that work with young people to stop them carrying knives and prevent them from being a danger to others and to themselves.

Ian Austin: Everybody wants to see tough action to tackle antisocial behaviour and I welcome what the Home Secretary said a moment ago about the involvement of council, Church and community groups in providing youth services. I have just come from a meeting with young people from Dudley, some of whom are in the Gallery now, and one of them asked me about Dudley council’s decision to cut spending for youth services. Does the Home Secretary think that antisocial behaviour is likely to increase or decrease as a result of cuts to spending on youth services?

Theresa May: What I think is important is that in every local community decisions are taken that are right for that local community about what is going to work. The Home Office and the Government are providing funding to a number of communities throughout the country to ensure that in many cases they can do excellent work with young people to ensure that we can reduce the number of knives that are carried on our streets. This is just the start. Further work will be done to try and counter the gang and youth violence which, sadly, blights too many of our communities.

Heidi Alexander: In August the Prime Minister told me that the Home Secretary would meet social media companies to explore the role of the internet and technology in propagating gang culture. Will the right hon. Lady tell me what the outcome of those meetings was and what action will be taken?

Theresa May: I am happy to do so. I did indeed meet representatives of Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry. I met them with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and from the Metropolitan police, and we discussed a number of matters—how the police can actively use social media networks, and how the companies can look at their terms and conditions to see when they might take people off the network because they are breaching those terms and conditions. Subsequent meetings have been held on a one-to-one basis between the police and the individual companies.

Tom Brake: In discussions with a very senior, experienced officer, one of the issues that he highlighted was the lack of effective communication channels between the police and young people. To what extent does the Home Secretary believe that the ending gang and youth violence teams will be able to pick up and run with that issue?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There is some good work being done here in London, for example, with the Safer London Foundation, which is a charity backed by the Metropolitan police. That is an important aspect of the work that I hope the ending gang and youth violence team will be able to encourage at a local community level.

Knife Crime

Albert Owen: What recent assessment she has made of the level of knife crime.

Stephen Timms: What recent assessment she has made of the level of knife crime.

Nick Herbert: In the 12 months to June 2011, data collected by police forces in England and Wales indicate that 7% of relevant violent offences involved the use of a knife or a sharp instrument.

Albert Owen: Knife crime affects every community. In my constituency, following the senseless murder of Leon Jones who was just 21, a group was set up called Dump the Knife—Save a Life. That was young people working with the police and the local community. Can the Minister ensure that funding for such groups will be available in the future, following the announcement of a cut of some 60% in community budgets?

Nick Herbert: I appreciate the value of groups such as the one the hon. Gentleman describes and am happy to look at it. We have made £18 million of funding available for the next two years to support the police,
	local agencies and the voluntary sector in tackling knife, gun and gang-related violence, and I would be happy to talk with him about the project.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to Ministers for supporting the “Carry a basketball not a blade” initiative in my constituency, but knife crime has risen in London every year since the current Mayor was elected. What more will the Minister do to press the Mayor to get on top of this terrible problem in London?

Nick Herbert: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that knife crime is a serious concern, which is why the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just pointed out, have introduced a new offence of aggravated carrying of a knife. We need to send clear signals and there needs to be effective police action. He knows that the Mayor has been promoting that in London with his knife crime plan, Operation Blade, and we will continue to support those efforts.

Charlie Elphicke: Is not the key to cutting knife crime the sending of a clear social message that anyone who commits a crime with a knife or gun will go to prison, actions that this Government have taken, along with the excellent ideas that Brooke Kinsella has come up with?

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about tough enforcement and sending a clear signal that those who carry knives and use them in a threatening manner will receive a custodial sentence, which we are legislating for, and about the programmes that work with communities to deter people from using knives. That is what Brooke Kinsella’s excellent report focused on.

Stella Creasy: In the past 10 days alone victims of knife crime have included a poppy seller in Sussex, a father attending a first birthday party in Mitcham and a young man trying to stop a fight in Walthamstow on Friday night. Given the scale of cuts to policing and community safety budgets that the Government are implementing under the Home Secretary’s watch, does she think that knife crime will continue to go up or go down next year?

Nick Herbert: I share the hon. Lady’s concern about knife crime, which is why we are introducing the measures I have announced on strong enforcement and the important community programmes to deter people from carrying knives, but I notice that her question did not include a single positive proposal for dealing with knife crime, other than the usual Labour party proposal, which is to spend more money.

Police Forces (Collaboration)

Harriett Baldwin: What progress she has made in increasing the level of collaboration between police forces.

Tony Baldry: What progress she has made in increasing the level of collaboration between police forces.

Theresa May: I welcome the increasing levels of collaboration between police forces and expect more forces to consider how to work together to bring improvements and save money. The Government provide funding to support regional collaborations to tackle organised crime and have strengthened the duty to collaborate through the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does she agree that the collaboration between West Mercia police and Warwickshire police, through their human resources department, produces exactly the kind of saving that can be made without resorting to the compulsory mergers advocated by the previous Government?

Theresa May: Indeed, and I commend my hon. Friend’s police force for the work it is doing in collaboration. Many forces across the country are collaborating in a number of areas. We are able to ensure that we can get the benefits of collaboration without forcing mergers on police forces, which the Labour party tried to do when it was in government.

Tony Baldry: Thames Valley police is collaborating in various ways with no fewer than six other forces, and the work it is doing with the Hampshire constabulary alone is saving £9 million a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for police forces to save money without that having any impact on front-line policing?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is possible. Thames Valley and Hampshire police are showing that, as are other forces up and down the country. Indeed, in many cases they will not only be saving money, but may be providing a more effective service.

Barbara Keeley: One area where collaboration between forces would be welcome is in dealing with metal theft, which is growing across the country. For example, a business in my constituency lost its industrial process, which meant that it then lost business. What will Ministers do to ensure that collaboration increases and, more importantly, when will they introduce legislation to deal with metal theft?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has raised a matter of serious concern to a great number of Members, particularly given that we have seen not only the impact on the economy, but the appalling incidence of theft of metal plaques from war memorials, which I am sure has shocked everyone in the House. We are discussing with ACPO and others what legislative changes to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 might be needed and we are talking with the police about what action can be taken to better identify the rogue dealers in advance of any changes to the legislation.

David Hanson: Nobody will oppose sensible collaborations, but with last week’s report of a 7% rise in theft and a 10% rise in household burglary reported, coupled with a projected loss of 16,000 police
	officers, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to tell us the exact total savings from such collaborations nationally and the remaining national funding shortfall after those collaborations have saved some money—if only so that the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is able to stop her police cuts campaign quickly.

Theresa May: Discussions are taking place between police forces on exactly how much money can be saved by such collaborations, and better approaches to police procurement and to IT, for example, will help to save £380 million. But I am very sorry because it sounds as if yet again the Labour party opposes action to save money while ensuring that the police are able to maintain their services.

Family Migration Route

Andrew Stephenson: What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.

John Baron: What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.

Damian Green: This Government are determined to bring net migration back to sustainable levels, and to bring a sense of fairness back to our immigration system. That is why we consulted on new measures to prevent the abuse of family migration, to promote integration and to reduce burdens on the taxpayer.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. At our party conference the Home Secretary outlined plans to amend the immigration rules better to balance the right to a family life with the wider public interest in controlling immigration. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of immigrants using article 8 of the European convention on human rights to remain in the United Kingdom?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the UK Border Agency took a snapshot, reviewing in detail those appeals by foreign criminals against deportation which were determined in October to December last year. There were 551, of which 162 were successful, and of those 99—61%—were allowed on article 8 grounds. That is precisely why we will revise the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing foreign nationals who are convicted of a criminal offence and those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.

John Baron: Amid the UK Border Agency’s problems with handling asylum cases, will the Minister assure the House that spouses coming to live here in the UK will have to show a commitment to speak and learn English—for their benefit as well as the benefit of society as a whole?

Damian Green: Both those points are right: such an approach is not just for the benefit of the individual; it is absolutely for the benefit of the community that they enter. That is why last November we introduced requirements that spouses and partners must demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language before they
	are granted a marriage visa. It is reasonable that anyone intending to live in the UK should understand English so that they can integrate fully and participate fully in life in this country.

Stephen McCabe: Given the passport control fiasco exposed over the past few days, does the Minister seriously still expect us to accept, as he said seven days ago:
	“The Government is doing more than ever before to protect the UK’s borders”?

Damian Green: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to make a statement on that matter later, when it can be dealt with in detail, but in his honest moments he will accept that one of the biggest problems—one of the biggest shambles—that this Government inherited was the immigration system that the previous Government left us, and that is what we are getting to grips with now.

Kate Green: Access to good quality expert advice is important to support legitimate applicants and to ensure that those who should not be here can be advised quickly that they have no case, but constituents report to me that such advice is in increasingly short supply. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that good quality advisers remain in place, particularly following the Government’s cuts to legal aid?

Damian Green: The Government’s cuts to legal aid specifically do not apply to asylum cases, because we accept that genuine asylum seekers will be in need of proper legal advice, but across the House it is agreed that some of the legal advice available in immigration cases, whether asylum or general immigration cases, is frankly substandard. That is why, when looking at our support for the legal aid system, which was yet another public spending regime that ran out of control under the previous Government, we have specifically protected the most vulnerable.

Julian Huppert: All of us want to try to avoid abuse of all the immigration systems, but does the Minister accept that our high-tech industries in particular rely on key individuals from overseas? It is very important to be able to attract those individuals, and some of these immigration changes risk deterring them from coming here. What steps will he take to ensure that we still get the key international people we need?

Damian Green: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that we have already taken those steps. Indeed we are bringing down the number of people coming here but, at the same time, we are differentiating more effectively, so that the brightest and the best can continue to come here. That is why we have created the new investors and entrepreneurs visas, which have doubled the number of entrepreneurs who have come into this country over the course of this year, and that is why we have set up the exceptional talent route.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

Antisocial Behaviour

Nicola Blackwood: What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

James Brokenshire: The Government are committed to tackling the corrosive impact of antisocial behaviour. We are ensuring that the police and other agencies have faster more effective powers, that complaints are dealt with more responsibly and that the public have much clearer information about incidents occurring in their local area.

Nicola Blackwood: I thank the Minister for his answer, but constituents and local police have raised with me their frustration at the difficulties that local police have in dispersing groups of antisocial individuals, who cause so much misery for their victims by their actions. The Home Office has consulted on giving front-line police the power to direct antisocial individuals and groups away from specific areas, but will the Minister update the House today on whether those proposals will be implemented and, if so, when?

James Brokenshire: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I certainly recognise the issues that many communities face from antisocial behaviour and the fact it perhaps was not previously taken as seriously as it should have been. We propose to combine the most effective elements of the various dispersal powers available to the police into a single simpler police power to direct people away from an area where they are committing or are likely to commit antisocial behaviour. We intend to legislate on the new powers at the earliest opportunity.

Gloria De Piero: As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, vandalism, antisocial behaviour and theft from war memorials repulse everybody, particularly in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday. Given that much of that activity is related to the illegal metal trade, why will Ministers not bring forward legislation right away? What is the hold-up?

James Brokenshire: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Front Bench. I certainly agree with her that the attacks on war memorials in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday are absolutely despicable. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning those shocking crimes. The Home Secretary has mentioned a number of steps that the Government are already taking. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan. Steps are already under way and we are working with other Departments to take further action as well.

Alcohol-related Antisocial Behaviour

Iain Stewart: What steps she is taking to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

James Brokenshire: The Government are bringing forward a package of measures to ensure
	that alcohol is no longer the driver of crime and disorder that it has been over the past decade. Measures range from giving more powers to local communities over licensing decisions, to cracking down on those selling alcohol to children and trialling a sobriety scheme to reduce offending. Those provisions are in addition to the introduction of wider measures to address antisocial behaviour.

Iain Stewart: In 2007, just five people were prosecuted for attempting to buy alcohol under age. Will my hon. Friend set out in a bit more detail what steps he is taking to restrict the sale of alcohol in retail outlets to those who are under age?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point on the whole issue of the irresponsibility of alcohol being sold to children. We have taken steps to double the maximum fine to those who are selling alcohol persistently to under-age children to £20,000, and to increase the powers of the police and local councils to close such premises down permanently. We are working with other Departments, and the Department of Health is leading on an alcohol strategy that will take into account further issues. I am under no illusions about the important role that parents and schools also have, which is why further action is being taken.

Nick Smith: Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to reduce alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour?

James Brokenshire: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have stated clearly their intention to ban below-cost sales, with the first measure being the banning of sales below duty plus VAT. I can confirm to him that those proposals will be implemented on 1 April next year.

Philip Davies: May I urge the Minister to concentrate on tough penalties for people who get involved in alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour instead of introducing this rather soppy, wishy-washy, nanny-state nonsense of minimum pricing of alcohol?

James Brokenshire: I thank my hon. Friend for his typical contribution to these debates. In dealing with issues of alcohol, we need to ensure that we have robust powers to deal with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, as we are doing. We also need to deal with pricing, which is why we are banning below-cost sales, and with prevention, which is why we will be taking further action in relation to schools, parents and the health service.

Mr Speaker: Michael Connarty is not here, so I call Mark Hendrick. [ Interruption. ] Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) to say that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) wants to ask about the food industry, but the question on the Order Paper is not about the food industry.

Illegal Immigration (Olympics)

Mark Hendrick: What assessment she has made of the potential effects of the London 2012 Olympics on the level of illegal immigration
	to provide forced labour in the food sector (a) in London and (b) nationwide.

Damian Green: I was looking forward to that question as well, Mr Speaker.
	The UK Border Agency does not have evidence of an increase in forced labour in the food sector as a result of the forthcoming London 2012 Olympics. However, the agency assesses, remains alert to, and, where appropriate, acts on a wide variety of immigration threats and risks specifically associated with the Olympics.

Mark Hendrick: The Government’s wait-and-see approach is dangerous. When Greece hosted the Olympics in 2004 and Germany held the World cup in 2006, the authorities adopted a forward-thinking strategy that included extra training for police to spot trafficking, and PR campaigns to raise awareness among the public. Will the Government consider adopting a more proactive strategy ahead of the games to ensure that human trafficking does not become part of the London 2012 legacy?

Damian Green: I am very aware of the importance of this issue, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that a strategy has been in place for some time. For example, the Olympic project team at UKBA has carried out over 8,000 identity assurance checks on contractors and workers on the Olympic site and have arrested 20 people as a result in the current financial year alone. In total, the team have carried out over 60,000 ID assurance checks and made over 300 arrests since 2008. The kind of proactive strategy that the hon. Gentleman wants is very much in operation..

Nicholas Soames: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. On this question, the wish of the right hon. Gentleman might or might not be satisfied.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Olympic year, the work of the border agency will be of the first importance? Does he agree, since the agency is likely to come in for some stick later on this afternoon, that its individual officers do a remarkable, vital and very important job for this country, and that that needs to be officially recognised?

Damian Green: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister should answer in the context of the London 2010 Olympics, or possibly in the context of forced labour in the food sector, in London or elsewhere.

Damian Green: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that UKBA officers do a vital job very conscientiously. It is particularly important that they continue to do that and, if possible, to enhance their services in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics. Part of that will involve ensuring that no abuse occurs in the food industry.

UK Border Agency

Sheila Gilmore: What estimate she has made of the future number of staff employed by the UK Border Agency.

Damian Green: Our priority remains to secure the border and to control migration while we help to reduce the public deficit. We expect to have reduced by about 5,200 posts from the start of the review period to around 18,000 by March 2015. We are on track to meet our staff reduction target.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister tell us how many of those 5,200 staff are being cut from the front line of the border force?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady will know that later this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement covering the issues that she is interested in. The reductions in staffing are not affecting the front line because we are improving the front line by, for instance, having airline liaison officers overseas. Over the past few years, that has prevented 60,000 people whom we did not want to travel from travelling in the first place. The use of facial recognition technology and e-gates also makes our borders more secure.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister assure the House that the effectiveness of our front-line border controls will not be undermined by pressure to reduce queues at airports?

Damian Green: As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is important to have intelligent border controls, to use technology and to put the right people in the right places so that we can keep our borders secure. Those are elements of this Government’s transformation of the UKBA to sort out the shambles that we inherited.

Chris Bryant: The Minister may not know how many people are being removed from the border force, but I do. The numbers are 886 in this financial year and 1,552 before the next general election. He boasts that he is getting a grip, but this year there have been waits of many hours, EU nationals have been waved through in their hundreds and non-EU nationals have waltzed into the country without so much as a by your leave. We would absolutely adore it if he got a grip. Can he really say, hand on heart, that his cuts have nothing to do with the corners that are being cut with our security?

Damian Green: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as shadow Minister for Immigration. I remember fondly when, in government, he talked about the
	“huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers”—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]
	complaining about immigration. I am sure that he will provide a lot of that in future years. I am sorry, but I have already answered his question. It is the way in which we use people that makes our borders more secure. I suggest that he pauses before he keeps using
	the phrase about waving people through, because nobody has been waved through the border. However, under the previous Government, as he will hear from the Home Secretary later, people were waved through.

Public Disorder (Tottenham)

David Lammy: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of policing in Tottenham on the first night of the public disorder of August 2011, following the Metropolitan Police Service statement of 24 October 2011.

Nick Herbert: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned the chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor, to undertake an urgent review of public order policing in the five forces most affected by the disorder, which we expect to receive shortly. We will ensure that the lessons from that review are taken forward.

David Lammy: I am surprised that the Minister did not comment on the statement of the Metropolitan police, which said that their policing on the first night of the riots was not good at all. He will recognise the frustration and anger in Tottenham at the scale of the damage to Tottenham High road. What will he and his Department do to encourage other Departments to ensure that my constituency is regenerated?

Nick Herbert: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is right for us to wait for the report by the independent inspectorate and to take careful note of what it says about the policing that took place. Clearly things did go wrong and we have to learn the lessons. The Government are committed to doing so as, I am sure, are the Metropolitan police. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this is not just about the security response, but about the social response and the preventive measures, which I know the right hon. Gentleman is keen to promote, that can deal with this situation and stop such things happening again.

Gangs (London)

Meg Hillier: What financial support she is providing to London boroughs to tackle gang-related issues.

Theresa May: The police, local government and voluntary groups in London currently receive Home Office funding to tackle gang, gun and knife crime as part of the communities against guns, gangs and knives programme, which was announced in February. Further support will be available next year for local areas across the country to implement sustainable approaches to tackling gang violence.

Meg Hillier: In Hackney, the integrated gangs intervention unit has overseen a major reduction in gang violence. It is funded from the base budget of the council, but that might be more challenging in future years. What work is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that boroughs across London are working together and
	providing funding for similar initiatives so that we do not see gangs being tackled in one area only for them to bubble up in another?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has made an important point about the importance of tackling this problem across the board. In talking to the Metropolitan police and in the work that will be done by the ending gangs and youth violence team that the Home office is setting up at a local community level, we will incorporate the need to ensure that this work does not simply move gangs on to other parts of London. Funding is being focused on areas where there are particular problems. Hackney is in receipt of several amounts of funding for such projects. I fully take on board the hon. Lady’s point and we will look at it in our further work.

Police Funding Settlement

Ian Lavery: Whether she plans to reassess the police funding settlement for 2012-13.

Nick Herbert: The spending review settlement for the police is challenging but manageable, and we will not reopen the debate on the overall level of reductions. As part of the provisional settlement process for 2012-13 we will provide provisional allocations for police authorities, which will be subject to consultation before parliamentary approval.

Ian Lavery: Some 16,000 jobs nationally and 627 in the Northumbria police force are to be slashed. Will the Minister look again at the police funding settlement to prevent those huge cuts in front-line services in the police force?

Nick Herbert: I have explained that we are not in a position to reconsider the four-year funding allocation that has been made, because we have to deal with the deficit. Opposition Members simply do not seem to understand that. The police can make savings in ways that protect front-line services, as we heard earlier, and we are committed to ensuring that that continues to be the case.

Mark Reckless: In its White Paper, the Home Office said that from 2012-13, the police and crime panels would have the power to trigger a referendum on a policing precept recommended by the police and crime commissioner. When did the Secretary of State decide that that power would be better exercised by herself?

Nick Herbert: I do not accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. I have committed to meeting him to discuss the issue, but we believe it important both that the panel has the power of veto over an excessive precept set by a police and crime commissioner, which has now been legislated for, and that the public have the ability to reject an excessive precept through the referendum lock. That is the subject of separate measures that are before the House in the Localism Bill.

Police Officer Numbers

Graeme Morrice: What estimate she has made of the number of police officers who will be in post in 2015.

Nick Herbert: As I have just explained to the House, we have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed given the available resources.

Graeme Morrice: The public disorder of August showed us that police numbers count, along with forces throughout the United Kingdom working closely together on major issues. Does not the Minister see therefore how foolish it is to cut more than 16,000 police officers by 2015—the same number that brought order to London during the summer riots?

Nick Herbert: As I have said, police forces must make savings because we have to deal with the deficit, but they can do so in a way that protects front-line policing. There is no reason why there should be damage to the front line if they drive savings elsewhere. I have pointed out to the House before, and will do so again, that a third of human resources in police forces are not on the front line. Some 25,000 police officers are in back-room jobs. That is where police forces should begin.

Anne McIntosh: In making the police settlement and deploying the police’s forces, will the Minister ensure that rural police forces have an element of funding related to rurality and sparsity?

Nick Herbert: We do ensure that, and I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the issue. I will, in fact, be speaking about rural crime at an Association of Chief Police Officers conference later this week. It is important that we tackle such matters, and they will all be taken into account when we consider the specific allocations for police forces for the third and fourth years of the spending round.

Jessica Morden: I am sure the Minister would like to join me in welcoming the 500 extra police community support officers pledged by the Welsh Assembly Government. The ones in Gwent are being recruited at the moment. Does he agree that they will be a really valuable help in tackling antisocial behaviour in Welsh communities, unlike the Government’s cuts in front-line policing?

Nick Herbert: If I can ignore the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, I will say that PCSOs play an important role in helping to ensure that we tackle crime and maintain confidence in communities. Last week the Home Secretary and I, and the shadow Home Secretary and her shadow Ministers, were able to attend the Jane’s Police Review community policing awards, which recognised the role of PCSOs and others, and it is important that we continue to recognise that role.

Police Authority Funding

Alun Cairns: What consideration she has given to the funding formula which allocates funding to each police authority.

Nick Herbert: The Police allocation formula is a robust and credible tool for estimating police work load in police force areas. It continues to be used to allocate the majority of central Government funding that goes to police authorities.

Alun Cairns: The South Wales police force area includes Cardiff, which, as a capital city, has additional civic responsibilities, which obviously mean that the police force incurs ongoing costs. Will the Minister agree to look at that factor and to meet me to consider it further?

Nick Herbert: I will continue to look at that factor, and am happy to agree to meet my hon. Friend—other hon. and right hon. Members have met me to discuss that issue. I should point out that forces can bid for funds through special grants for events or unforeseen circumstances. That is restricted to expenditure exceeding 1% of a force’s annual budget, but South Wales police have benefited from such awards in the past.

Topical Questions

Philip Davies: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: A number of hon. and right hon. Members have referred to reports in the past few days on the UK border force. As the Home Office has already said, a senior official at the UK border force, Brodie Clark, has been suspended for acting without ministerial sanction, but I will make a statement to the House later today.

Philip Davies: Of all the people who were arrested and convicted as a result of the riots across the country in the summer, what estimate has the Home Secretary made of the number who were arrested and charged through the police use of CCTV and DNA?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is returning to topics that I know he has pursued for some considerable time. Obviously, there was significant use of CCTV. That is why this Government continue to support its use.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to instigate an inquiry into border control this summer, which we will discuss shortly, but let me ask her a security question: what is her estimate of the number of people who passed into Britain through our ports and airports this summer under the reduced security and passport regime that the UK Border Agency was operating?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Lady knows, I will make a full statement to the House later this afternoon, and will have a full opportunity to answer her questions
	then, but I should like to make a few things clear. In the past, under the last Government, some security checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border, including one instance when local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made—not even cursory checks of passports.
	To prevent that from happening again and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that UKBA could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers. We have since discovered that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, authorised the wider relaxation of border controls without ministerial sanction. As I said, I shall make a statement to the House later today and will answer questions on this matter fully then.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary did not answer my question on how many people went through under the reduced security regime, and I am concerned that she does not know. As she will know, previously, both Labour and Conservative Ministers have committed to the roll-out of e-Borders so that proper screening could be available for everyone entering and leaving the country. She seems to be rolling that system back, not forward. When describing the rolling back of checks for EU citizens this summer, a UKBA staff member told me, “We were told not to check children travelling with family groups. That was ridiculous. Supposing a man…had taken them away from their mother and they were wards of court, they would pass through undetected. I have detected many wards of court simply by running them through the warnings index.”
	The Home Secretary took the decision to reduce the checks for EU citizens this summer. Why did she do so?

Theresa May: As I have indicated to the right hon. Lady, I shall set out exactly what decisions were taken in my statement to the House later today. I indicated in my first answer to her that we were looking at targeting intelligence-led checks on higher risk categories of travellers. She referred to e-Borders, but this has nothing to do with e-Borders. When we took office, we had to stop the contract with the contractor that the last Labour Government agreed for e-Borders because it was significantly behind schedule in putting it in place.

Pauline Latham: What steps is the Minister taking to alert parents to signs of grooming being forced on to innocent children by either their family or close friends, which is completely unacceptable?

James Brokenshire: The crime of child sexual exploitation is utterly appalling and reprehensible, and I well understand why my hon. Friend is raising this issue, given the impact that such incidents have had in Derbyshire. I pay tribute to the work of Derbyshire police through Operation Retriever. I note that their work was recognised at the police review event in the past few days. Awareness-raising is done through the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s thinkuknow programme, which delivers prevention messages directly into schools and is helping to raise awareness of this issue among parents and young people.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children and families, is developing an action plan to safeguard children and young people from sexual exploitation, which will be published shortly. Raising awareness among parents of this terrible form of abuse will be an important element of that.

Madeleine Moon: South Wales police have an excellent programme for tackling domestic violence, working with local authorities, health authorities and voluntary groups. What new advice and guidance will be issued to them following the statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), that the Government did not consider an investigation by the police or the police having been called out as providing sufficient clear objective evidence that domestic violence had occurred?

Lynne Featherstone: We will be asking the, the idea that the police—I am sorry, but I did not hear the question properly. I apologise. Is the hon. Lady asking about the evidence needed to get legal aid for legal advice on domestic violence? I apologise to her. I did not hear the question.

Mr Speaker: We must move on.

Eric Ollerenshaw: In welcoming the latest departmental developments regarding the police crime mapping website, which my constituents are beginning to learn to use, does the Minister agree that this marks the beginning of a real step-change improvement in police transparency and hopefully accountability to local communities?

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. POLICE.uk, our street-level crime mapping website, has received more than 430 million hits since its launch at the beginning of the year, which translates to well over 40 million visits. We are adding new information on crime types and, from next year, justice outcomes. It is an important part of our transparency programme, and it demonstrates that the public want, and make use of, this information.

Tom Greatrex: When does the Home Secretary intend to review the definition of an “air weapon” under the Firearms Act 1968?

Theresa May: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I did not actually hear the question. I understand that he said “air weapons”. Is that right?

Tom Greatrex: indicated assent.

Theresa May: May I write to the hon. Gentleman and set it out to him clearly?

Stephen Mosley: Organised crime costs the British economy £40 billion a year and affects families, businesses and local communities.
	What action is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to recover criminal assets and the proceeds of crime?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue of criminal finances. We are determined that criminal proceeds will be taken away from those who commit these appalling offences. In total, using powers such as asset denial and by targeting money launderers, the agencies involved denied criminals more than £1 billion last year. However, we want to take further action, which is why we are setting up the National Crime Agency, and we also want to make asset-recovery quicker, more robust and more effective in order to address the point that he rightly highlighted.

Tom Watson: I know that the Home Secretary is reluctant to answer any questions on the UK Border Agency in advance of her statement, but does she accept that 18 months into this Government, the decisions taken on Britain’s borders are hers and hers alone, and that she should make no attempt to blame the previous Government for the mess that we see now?

Theresa May: I am willing to stand here and take responsibility for the decisions that I have taken. I only wish that the Opposition were willing to stand up in this House and take responsibility for the decisions that they took when they were in government.

Bob Russell: Please listen carefully; I will say this only once. In the future assessment of police numbers and funding formulae, have any discussions taken place with the Ministry of Defence about the huge cuts in the MOD police? In the case of the Colchester garrison, the last Labour Government managed to cut its 30 officers to three, which has affected the Essex police.

Mr Speaker: I do not think anybody has ever had any trouble hearing the hon. Member for Colchester, even some miles away.

Nick Herbert: As my hon. Friend knows, the MOD police are not the responsibility of the Home Office; they are the responsibility of the MOD. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with them.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister promised that all legitimate claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 following the recent riots would be paid. I understand that a commitment has been made to ensure that the Metropolitan police will see its money, whereas Greater Manchester police authority is still struggling to get an answer from the Home Office. Can the Home Secretary or one of her Ministers give an answer today?

Theresa May: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will indeed cover claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, but as I am sure he will appreciate, it is necessary to check and verify those claims. We have been generous with the definition that we have used, but there is still a necessary process to go through—for example, to identify the exact value of the property lost.

Karl McCartney: Is the Minister aware that the average fine in 2010 for people caught driving without motor insurance in Lincolnshire was £213, down from £233 in 2008, when the average cost of fully comprehensive motor insurance premiums for my constituents is around £650, having risen on average by 40% in the same two years? Does he agree that such fines do nothing to dissuade potential or existing offenders from driving without insurance? What plans do the Government have to address the situation?

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue, about which I want to talk to the Department for Transport. Uninsured driving already raises the cost of premiums for honest motorists to the tune of £30. Individual fines are a matter for magistrates, but it is important that we look at this matter.

Paul Goggins: Further to the Home Secretary’s reply about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, if insurance companies are successful in pressing claims for the cost of business interruption, will those costs also be included in the financial settlement?

Theresa May: I do not think that business interruption is being looked at, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and set out exactly what we are doing in relation to the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and what criteria are being followed to ensure that police forces and others are paid the necessary sums.

Andrew George: My constituent Joanne Bryce, whose sister Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s murder was uncovered in Cambridgeshire in December 1998, has worked tirelessly to find out why the case has been so appallingly mishandled by the local constabulary, but she and I have been frustrated at every turn. Will the Policing Minister meet me to discuss the issue with my constituent?

Nick Herbert: Yes, of course I will meet my hon. Friend. I appreciate his concern and that of his constituent about the matter; the problem is that the case was investigated by the precursor of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is an obstacle, but I will indeed discuss the case with him.

Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary has recently launched a consultation on the disclosure of previous convictions of serial perpetrators of domestic violence, following the tragic murder of Clare Wood in my constituency and the courageous campaign by her father, Michael Brown. Will the Home Secretary tell me whether there will be early legislation following the consultation to implement the scheme and prevent further tragic deaths like that of Clare Wood?

Theresa May: It is certainly our intention to act as soon as possible on the basis of the consultation. The right hon. Lady will be aware that certain powers are already available to the police to make disclosures to individuals. The consultation will look at whether further powers
	are necessary. I, too, pay tribute to Michael Brown for the campaign that he is running. He is very brave to do so in the face of such tragic circumstances.

Stephen Metcalfe: One of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour that my constituents tell me about involves people’s lifestyles and actions having a really detrimental effect on their neighbours’ quality of life. What proposals are the Government bringing forward to help the police and local authorities to deal with this problem?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, these are local issues that deserve local solutions. There has been a consultation on speeding up the eviction of antisocial tenants; it closes today. The rights of a tenancy bring with them responsibilities, and we will be reflecting on that consultation in due course, once the responses are finalised.

Katy Clark: What mechanisms, if any, are being put in place to ensure that staff and their representatives are given an opportunity to express their concerns about problems with the functions of the UK Border Agency?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that we are always willing to hear from members of staff about any concerns that they might have, and about any proposals for the better operation of the UK Border Agency. Indeed, I was in Turkey only a matter of days ago, listening to those who were making visa decisions in the embassy there, and hearing directly from them their concerns and their ideas for making things better.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Following an illegal encampment of 13 caravans in Harlow town centre at the weekend, Essex police have refused to be the lead agency in removing the trespassers because they are following Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines. Will the Minister confirm that ACPO guidance is no substitute for the police enforcing the law, rather than forcing Harlow council to go through a lengthy court process?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. First, however, may I commend Essex police for the action that they took alongside Basildon council in the operation at Dale farm? We are looking at whether we need to give the police extra powers in relation to the clearing of encampments and other incursions on to land. Currently, assuming that the incursion is not stopping the normal life of the community, the landowner has to take legal action. If it is stopping the normal life of the community, the police do have some powers. This matter concerns a great many people, and we are actively looking into it.

G20

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s G20 summit. There were three key aspects to the summit. First, agreement on an action plan for growth and jobs, with specific countries agreeing to do specific things in order to maximise overall growth in the world economy. Secondly, the G20 continued with its work to identify and remove some of the key obstacles to growth, including imbalances between surplus and deficit countries, to stop the slide to protectionism, to improve global governance, and to protect the world’s poorest from the current economic problems. Thirdly, there was, of course, the main issue of instability in the eurozone. Let me take each in turn.
	First, the action plan for growth and jobs. This includes many of the things that Britain is already doing, from fiscal consolidation and monetary activism to removing the barriers in the way of business and job creation. The G20 recognised yet again the importance of implementing
	“clear, credible and specific measures to achieve fiscal consolidation.”
	It also clearly identified a group of countries that have the space to borrow for additional discretionary measures. I have to tell any Members of the House who would like to see the UK borrow more that no one was proposing that the UK should be in that group of countries. We are determined to deal with our debts, not to leave them to our children and grandchildren. The need to press on with our plan for fiscal consolidation has now been recognised by the G20, as well as by the International Monetary Fund and the OECD.
	Secondly, obstacles to growth. The imbalances that did so much damage in the run-up to 2008 are growing again. This matters, because if we are to maximise global growth and avoid some of the speculative bubbles of the past, countries with a trade surplus need to increase domestic demand and ensure that they keep their markets open, while those with a trade deficit have to undertake structural reforms to improve competitiveness. There was some real progress. For instance, Russia is making changes to its foreign exchange regime, and China agreed to increase its exchange rate flexibility. Both of those are reflected in the communiqué, but more needs to be done.
	The greatest mistake that the global economy could make is to enter into a slide towards protectionism. The World Trade Organisation report sets out all the protectionist measures that have been taken in G20 countries over the last year, and they are a cause for concern. So the G20 reaffirmed its pledge not to take protectionist actions, committed again to roll back any new protectionist measures that might have arisen, and reaffirmed its determination to refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies. We also welcomed the fact that Russia, the last G20 country outside the World Trade Organisation, is now set to become a member of the WTO by the end of the year.
	On Doha, I have said it is time to look at working with groups of countries in so- called “coalitions of the willing” to drive new trade deals. Together with five other G20 leaders, I wrote to President Sarkozy ahead
	of the summit to call for new and innovative approaches to trade liberalisation. That is what was agreed in the communiqué.
	On improving global governance, I presented a report, which I am placing in the Library today. We secured agreement for the key proposals. First, we agreed that the G20 should continue as an informal, flexible gathering rather than attempting a complete reordering of the system of global governance. What is needed is not new institutions, but political will. Secondly, we agreed that we should make the now established Financial Stability Board a separate legal body to give it the authority and capability that it needs. Thirdly, we agreed that we should strengthen the WTO’s role as the guardian of the world trade system. Further progress was also made on cracking down on tax havens and tax evasion and on having a proper regulatory system for banks to make up for the woeful system that has existed in so many countries, including ours, over the last decade.
	On development, Bill Gates gave a presentation suggesting ways of mobilising resources to help the world’s poorest. This included helping some developing countries to help themselves through proper systems for collecting taxes and transparent revenues for natural resources. At the same time, he gave strong support to the UK’s own record on the development agenda.
	On the financial transactions tax, I have been clear all along that we are not opposed in principle to such a tax if one could be agreed at the global level, but we will not unilaterally introduce a new financial transactions tax in the UK. Neither will we support its introduction in the European Union unless it is part of a global move. Britain has introduced a bank levy and we are meeting our global agreements on overseas aid. If other countries want to introduce new financial taxes at home, including to raise revenue for development, that is for them to decide. What they should not do is try to hide behind proposals for an EU tax as an excuse for political inaction on meeting targets, whether they be for spending on development or, indeed, climate change.
	The current proposals for a financial transactions tax in Europe are so deeply confused that different European countries, and indeed European institutions, have talked about spending the revenues of such a tax in five different ways: on development, on climate change, on social policy, on resolving the banking crisis, and, most recently, as the best way to supplement the EU budget. I have to say that that would be a bit of a stretch even for Robin Hood.
	Let me turn, finally, to the problems in the eurozone. It is clearly in our national interest for the eurozone to sort out its problems. As the Chancellor has said, the biggest single boost to the British economy this autumn would be a lasting resolution to the eurozone crisis. That is why Britain has been pressing the eurozone to act—not just at the G20, but for many months. The deal in Brussels 10 days ago was welcome progress, and it reflected the three essential elements that Britain has been calling for: first, reinforcement of the bail-out fund by eurozone countries to create a proper firewall against contagion; secondly, recapitalisation of weak European banks; and, thirdly, a decisive resolution to the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts.
	The Euro area countries now need to do everything possible to implement their agreement urgently. Of course, the rest of the world can play a supporting role, but in
	the end this work has to be done by the eurozone countries themselves. No one else can do it for them. As I have said before, Britain will not contribute to the eurozone bail-out fund—whether that be through the European financial stability facility or a special purpose vehicle. And while the International Monetary Fund may administer a fund, it cannot and will not contribute to it.
	The IMF does, however, have a vital role to play in supporting countries right across the world that are in serious economic distress. There are 53 countries currently being supported by the IMF, of which only three—Greece, Ireland and Portugal—are in the eurozone. It is essential for confidence and economic stability that the IMF has the resources it needs. So, at the G20, Britain, the US, China and all the other countries round the table made it clear that we are willing in principle to see an increase in IMF resources to boost global confidence. There was no agreement about the timing, the extent or the exact method through which this could be done. However, Britain stands ready to contribute within limits agreed by this House. Those who propose that we walk away from the IMF, or who oppose even the increase in IMF resources agreed by the last Government, are not acting responsibly or in the best interests of Britain.
	It is in our national interest for countries across the world that are in distress to be supported in their efforts to recover. The collapse of our trading partners, whether in the eurozone or not, would have a serious impact on our economy. Businesses would not invest, British jobs would be lost, and families across Britain would be poorer. Through the IMF, we can help other countries in a way that does not affect our own public finances—but let me be clear: it is for the eurozone and the European Central Bank to support the euro, and global action cannot be a substitute for concrete action by the eurozone. The G20 withheld specific IMF commitments at this stage precisely because we wanted to see more concrete action from eurozone countries to make their firewall credible and to stand behind their currency. In short, the world sent a clear message to the eurozone at this summit: “Sort yourselves out and then we will help, not the other way round.”
	These are very difficult times for the global economy. The Government are completely focused on one objective: to help Britain to weather the storm and safeguard our economy. Because of the tough decisions that the Government have already taken to get to grips with our deficits, Britain has avoided the worst of this stage of the global debt crisis. In 2008, under the last Government, UK bond yields were about the same as those in Greece; today, although we have the second highest deficit in the EU—second only to Ireland’s—our bond yields are almost the same as those in Germany, and around the lowest that they have been since world war two. That is because we have a credible plan to deal with our debts, and the resolve to see it through. The situation in Italy further emphasises the importance of a credible plan to deal with debts and ensure confidence in the markets more generally.
	The eurozone must now do what is necessary, and see through the agreement that it reached in Brussels 10 days ago, Britain, and all our G20 partners, will continue to press for that to happen. I commend my statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but I have to say to him—what a complacent statement from an out-of-touch Prime Minister! Anyone listening to him would think that the G20 summit had been a great success, but it was not.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister about the three areas in which the summit should have made progress: the eurozone, reform of our banking system, and economic growth. On the eurozone, the Chancellor said in mid-September:
	“'The eurozone has six weeks to resolve this political crisis.”
	The six weeks are up, but there is no clear solution on financing. How much, from whom, and in what circumstances? None of those questions are being answered. Now we see the crisis in Greece spreading to Italy, and no plans for jobs and growth—just more austerity.
	Can the Prime Minister tell us why European and G20 leaders failed to find a solution to the problems of the eurozone? Given that the Chancellor told us from Cannes that he and the Prime Minister were
	“right at the heart of the discussions here”,
	people will be struck by the Prime Minister’s tone today. Progress that was made at the summit was, of course, down to him—and, as always with this Prime Minister, failure is nothing to do with him.
	Does the Prime Minister not now regret that he did not try harder and earlier to engage in the discussions and push for an agreement, rather than standing aside and claiming that Britain was a “safe haven”? If we were indeed at the heart of the discussion, can the Prime Minister say what responsibility he takes for the failure of the eurozone? Given the importance that all this has for Britain, can he tell us specifically what he plans to do in the coming days to secure an agreement?
	Let me turn to the funding for the IMF. The Prime Minister said in his press conference on Friday, and again today,
	“you can’t ask the IMF or other countries to substitute for the action that needs to be taken within the eurozone itself.”
	We agree with that position. The sensible step of increasing resources for the IMF should not be taken to make up for inadequate eurozone action.
	The Prime Minister has said that he would not support the direct use of IMF resources to top up the European financial stability facility, but can he also categorically rule out the use of IMF resources indirectly, in parallel, to make up for insufficient funding from the EFSF or the European Central Bank? Can he also square his position that his commitment is within agreed resources with the comment of the managing director of the IMF that there is “no cap…no ceiling” on IMF resources?
	Let me turn to the issue of banking reform, and specifically the global financial transactions tax, which we support and believe should be implemented if we can reach agreement in all the major financial centres. It was on the agenda in Cannes, although no real progress was made. I have to say I could not tell from his statement whether the Prime Minister really supports it; after all, “not opposed in principle” is hardly a ringing endorsement. I do not think we should be surprised, because the week before the summit negotiations had even started, the Chancellor was writing to business leaders casting doubt on whether any such mechanism
	offers an efficient way to raise revenue. So can the Prime Minister tell us whether he actually argued for a global financial transactions tax at the summit, and can he tell us what steps he will be taking in the weeks and months ahead to advance its cause?
	Turning to growth, the first substantive paragraph of the communiqué states:
	“Since our last meeting, global recovery has weakened, particularly in advanced countries, leaving unemployment at unacceptable levels.”
	That is certainly true in this country, where growth has flatlined and unemployment is at a 17-year high. So does the Prime Minister understand why people are so disappointed by the failure of the summit?
	The Prime Minister talks about the words in the communiqué about trade and imbalances, but action on trade and imbalances will take years to implement. He also mentions undertakings by various countries who have scope to take action, but it is a very important point in the communiqué that they will be implemented only if
	“global economic conditions materially worsen.”
	People around the country will be wondering: how much worse do they need to get for action to be taken? He says, by the way, that nobody is arguing for Britain to change course, but the IMF said only last month that if the British economy continues to undershoot, the Chancellor should do just that. How much longer does the country have to wait for him to change course?
	After the April 2009 G20 summit the Prime Minister said:
	“The glitz and glamour of this week must seem very remote to the small businessman who still can’t secure the credit to stay afloat—or the mother worrying if she’ll be able to keep a roof over her children’s heads.”
	The 2009 G20 summit succeeded, and this one failed. For the young person who is unemployed, for the business that has seen demand for its goods disappear, and for the shops that have seen people leaving the high street, this summit achieved precisely nothing. That is why the Prime Minister looks so out of touch when he claims that the summit has made a difference on growth. But is not the real problem this: the Prime Minister does not really believe that we need a global plan for growth? He thinks the answer for the world is collective austerity, just as he used to claim that the answer is austerity at home.
	People wanted action from this summit, and they did not get it. Those struggling to find work, seeing their living standards squeezed, asking why the economy is not working for them, deserve better. Is not the truth that this is a do-nothing summit from a deeply complacent Prime Minister, out of touch with the real needs of our economy?

David Cameron: Honestly, I do not know who writes this rubbish! I liked the bit when the right hon. Gentleman quoted my response to the 2009 summit: I have to say that if the 2009 summit was such a success, why did the Labour party vote in the House of Commons against one of its key conclusions—the idea of increasing IMF resources? He talks about regulating banks, with no recognition of the failed regulatory system that he
	oversaw for a decade. He talks about the eurozone, with no recognition of the fact that Labour had a “national changeover plan” to get the whole of Britain to adopt the euro? Above all, let us be clear: if we had listened to his advice, we would not have been in Cannes discussing a Greek bail-out; we would have been at the IMF discussing a British bail-out.
	Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the figures. In 2008 Greek and British bond yields were both 4.5%. Since then, in the UK that rate has halved, whereas in Greece it is up by six times. That is because they did not have a credible policy for deficit reduction, and we do.
	Let me come back to the issue of the IMF, because what we are seeing from the Labour party is breathtakingly irresponsible. Let us be clear about its position on the IMF, and let us remember that that is an organisation founded by Britain, in which we are a leading shareholder, and also an organisation that rescued us from Labour in the 1970s. Labour’s position is, first, to vote against the increase in resources agreed by the G20 under their own Government. They called it a “triumph” at the time, yet Labour Members trooped through the Lobby in a complete display of opportunism. But it gets worse, because now they are saying that they do not want IMF resources for any eurozone country. Are they saying that they want to take the money from Ireland and Portugal? They would have turned up at the summit, where every country was talking about increasing IMF resources, and said that on no account would Britain support that. How ridiculous. They are saying to eurozone countries, which also contribute to the IMF, “You’re never, ever allowed to seek its assistance.” If they meant that, I would take it seriously—but this is all about politics: they are putting the politics ahead of the economics. We know that that is the case with the shadow Chancellor: he only ever thinks about the politics. The question for the leader of the Labour party today is: are you a bigger politician than that? I am afraid that the answer is no.

Peter Tapsell: Did Chancellor Merkel tell my right hon. Friend why the European Central Bank is not fully discharging its duties as the euro’s lender of last resort? It is not providing massive quantitative easing, not moving towards near-zero interest rates and not urging President Sarkozy to renationalise the leading French banks before the credit crunch closes on France. Chancellor Merkel knows very well that it was not inflation but high unemployment which, in my lifetime, brought down the Weimar republic, and will do the same for the European Union.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend speaks hugely powerfully about this issue. He is right that we must not allow the IMF to substitute for what the ECB and the other institutions of the European Union need to do; that is vital. It was one of the reasons why, in the end, all the countries of the world that were prepared to see an increase in IMF resources wanted to see more done by the eurozone and by the ECB. I have discussed this with Chancellor Merkel on many occasions. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do of the huge hold-back that there is in Germany about what a central bank is, and what it should do. But I do believe that, as
	it says in the communiqué, you have got to have the institutions of the eurozone fully behind the currency in order to save it.

Alistair Darling: Understandably, the Prime Minister is putting a brave face on what happened last week. On any viewing, the G20 failed to reach its aims on growth, on the imbalances or on the eurozone crisis, which is as bad now as it was a few days ago. I see that there were reports that the G20 is planning to meet again, perhaps as early as in the remaining part of this year or at the beginning of next year. Is that right? If so, would the Prime Minister bear it in mind that in some ways, no summit is better than another failure? The G20 may not be perfect, but it cannot afford another meeting where it singularly fails to come up with the goods.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: meetings that do not have a proper conclusion can often add to the problem rather than solve it. What is required is the political will for eurozone countries to act. I was very clear after the G20 meeting that it had not achieved a breakthrough on the euro—that is absolutely clear. Some progress has been made in terms of establishing the three elements that need to be put in place—the firewall, the recapitalisation and the Greek write-down—but much more has to be done. There may well be a meeting of G20 Finance Ministers, but I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes: it is progress and resolution of these issues that is required, rather than another meeting.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Given the intense interest in this statement and the fact that there are two further statements to follow, brevity is essential.

Andrew Tyrie: The European Commission has estimated that implementation of the financial transactions tax would reduce gross domestic product in the euro area by 1.8%. Of course, that would hit the UK disproportionately hard at a time when we need more growth, not less. Does the Prime Minister agree that, of all times, now is not the appropriate moment to consider such a controversial measure?

David Cameron: It is important for people to see the European Commission report on the financial transactions tax, which shows the figures that my hon. Friend talks about, and shows that it would cost jobs. As I have said, if we could achieve global agreement for a tax of that nature there would be a case for it, but it is very hard to see that happening. I think that the focus of politicians in Europe should be to meet the promises they have already made about development rather than to hide behind a financial transactions tax that they know is very unlikely to come into being.

David Miliband: The frustration and impatience that the Prime Minister expressed on Thursday and Friday last week were extremely well merited, and it would be as well if he came here and repeated his concerns about the failure of leadership across Europe at this vital time. In that context, though, is it not a tragedy that when Europe does need a voice
	for reform—for example, on budgetary policy, which is going to be a major issue in coming years—he has dealt himself out of the game with a focus on the repatriation of powers, which, frankly, is not the issue that is going to make or break the European economy?

David Cameron: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason: I have managed to assemble a coalition for budgetary restraint in the European Union, and this year Britain, France, Germany and others have all agreed to freeze the EU budget in real terms. I would like to go much further, but I have to say that a freeze in the budget in real terms is not something we have been able to achieve in recent years, and is a breakthrough, so I do not accept the point about looking at rebalancing powers in Europe and fighting for a deal on the budget. We can do both.

William Cash: Given that the single market, including the City of London, is governed by qualified majority voting, how does the Prime Minister propose to achieve a majority to protect our interests in the context of the fiscal union that he advocates?

David Cameron: First, we need to disconnect the issues that my hon. Friend raises. The issue of the single market and the threat to the City of London and Britain’s financial services is a real threat. We have to work extremely hard to build alliances in the single market and in the European Council to stop directives that would damage our interests. I think it is extremely important that we do that work. Financial services matter hugely to this country, and this is one of the areas that I want to ensure we can better safeguard in future.
	I do not support fiscal union. I do not think that Britain ought to join a fiscal union, as I do not think that is the right move for us. However, we have a single currency that is quite dysfunctional, and one way in which it could be made more functional is greater fiscal union. That is a statement of fact rather than our saying that we want in any way to join it: we do not. We want to safeguard the interests of Britain by making sure that the single market works for us.

Glenda Jackson: Is it really in the best long-term interests of this country for the Government consistently to present the United Kingdom as the neighbour from hell with regard to the European Union—not least with regard to the Tobin tax? The issues on which the European Union wishes to spend money are the issues on which the Prime Minister’s constituents and mine, and citizens around the world, wish to see money spent—not least on alleviating suffering in the third world and on climate change. Will he change his mind on this issue?

David Cameron: With great respect to the hon. Lady, this Government—and to an extent the Governments whom she supported—have made and kept promises about things that our constituents care about, such as development and climate change. We are meeting those. As for being a good neighbour, one of the most unneighbourly acts someone could perform when the whole world is looking at growing the resources of the IMF to safeguard the global economy is to walk away from that and vote against it—something that I know
	that quite a lot of Labour MPs, probably including some on the Front Bench, are rather ashamed of. Such an act would show them to be not only not a good neighbour, but on another planet.

John Redwood: As there is a danger of the euro crisis now spreading to Italy, can the Prime Minister tell me what the leaders of euroland have said they will do by way of buying Italian bonds or offering subsidised loans to Italy to head off the crisis in the market there?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend asks an important question. It goes back to the question that the Father of the House asked, about the actions of the ECB. The ECB has been intervening in markets and buying bonds of countries that are under pressure. That is what makes it so difficult to understand why some in Europe are so opposed to the ECB being more of a monetary activist, if I could put it that way. The key with Italy—everyone should be careful about speculating about another country, but the point I made in my statement is that Italy must demonstrate that it has a credible fiscal path. That is as much about the confidence of the markets that it will be able to pay its deficit and pay its debts. If it can do that, its interest rates will fall.

Kelvin Hopkins: The door marked “Exit from the eurozone” is now clearly in view and a number of eurozone states are moving inexorably towards it. Is it not obvious that until those states can recreate their own national currencies and find an appropriate parity for those currencies, they will not recover?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman refers principally, I think, to Greece. That is an issue that the Greeks have to decide themselves. They have been offered a deal that writes down their debts and can enable them to stay in the single currency; it is their decision whether to take that road or to take another road. The only thing I would say to Members of the House who are deeply sceptical about a single currency, of whom I am one, is that we should be very careful to recognise that countries leaving a single currency can cause all sorts of knock-on effects and problems for other economies, including our own. We should not see it as some sort of painless easy option for a country to fall out of the euro. It would have very real consequences for other countries, including our own, and we have to think about that in that context.

Simon Hughes: Given the role that the big banks played by being overstretched and therefore triggering the present financial crisis, can the Prime Minister tell us what progress he made in persuading his colleague countries in the G20 to follow the proposal that we made and that the Vickers commission recommended to break up the banks that are too big to fail, so that in no economy are the big financial institutions able to hold a gun to the state and to the taxpayer?

David Cameron: Obviously, many people will comment on the ultimate failure of the G20 to resolve the eurozone crisis, but the G20 has made good steps
	forward in areas such as trying to roll back protectionism, and particularly on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises about globally significant financial institutions and the impact that they can have. The approach that Vickers recommends is fully in tune with what other G20 countries are recommending.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister realise that the British people out there are listening to the sheer effrontery of this British Prime Minister suggesting a growth plan for Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, while here at home he sticks rigidly to high inflation and mass unemployment? Hypocrisy by the bucketful!

David Cameron: That probably sounded better in front of the mirror than when the hon. Gentleman got to the Chamber.

Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest single fillips to global growth would be breaking the deadlock over the Doha round? Can he say how confident he is now that the approach of willing coalitions will help make progress on this issue under the Mexican presidency?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The point about Doha is that it is not progressing in the way that it was meant to. There is a gridlock between many of the developing countries and, particularly, countries such as America that do not see enough in the round for them. So it seems that the only way forward, if we want to see more global trade deals that are good for all those participating, is to have coalitions of the willing—countries that want to push ahead. That is what has been sanctioned at the G20, and that is what we can now push ahead with.

Gisela Stuart: Greece, Spain and Portugal already are, and Italy probably is, insolvent within the European monetary union. None of these countries is likely to regain its competitiveness while it is part of the single currency. Does the Prime Minister not think it would be better for the IMF to give them extra funds only once they have left the single currency, rather than while they are part of the EMU?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is not necessarily fair to lump all those countries together. Some of them, such as Italy, have huge deficits in terms of the ratio of debt to GDP, but have managed to compete within the single currency, so I am not sure that the way in which she groups those countries together is entirely fair. The important role of the IMF is not to support a currency system, not to support the eurozone, and not to invest into a bail-out fund. The IMF has to be there for countries in distress. That is why everyone in the House supported, for instance, the IMF programme that went into Ireland. The IMF went in as a partner of other countries, but it did go in. If she turns her question round the other way, it would be extraordinary, would it not, to say to eurozone countries, “You are shareholders in the IMF, you contributed to the IMF, but when you’re in distress you can’t get any money from the IMF at all”? That
	would be an extraordinary position—but it is one that seems to have the support of those on the Labour Front Bench.

Edward Leigh: Has not the avoidance of a concentration of political and economic power on the continent been a cardinal feature of British foreign policy for 300 years? How then is it in our interests to facilitate the creation of a single fiscal and monetary union that will have enormous power over us, but over which we will have very little influence?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend asks a question with a broad historical sweep. We are suffering at the moment from a single currency that we are not a member of, but that has some serious structural faults. It is in our interests that those faults are resolved, and one way of helping to do that would be to have a greater pooling of fiscal sovereignty among the members of the single currency. I always felt that that was necessary and was going to happen, which is one reason why I never supported the single currency. However, I do not think that we can stick happily with the status quo when the single currency is having a chilling effect on our economy, through the crisis, and not seek some sort of resolution.

Keith Vaz: A few years ago the President of Yemen was invited to the G20, but the country now has the world’s third highest rate of malnutrition. What additional help can Yemen be given as a result of the G20 meeting? Would the Prime Minister be happy for some of the IMF money he has just given to go to Yemen?

David Cameron: First, we have not yet given any IMF money. There was no agreement on how much should be given, exactly when it should be given or in what way. The world was saying that it stood ready to support the IMF. The IMF has supported countries like Yemen in the past and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have put development aid into Yemen. The biggest challenge in Yemen is the lack of effective governance, and I think that what Bill Gates was talking about—proper systems for raising taxes and for transparency in Government revenues and in revenues from extractive industries and minerals—are the keys to helping such countries along their way.

Douglas Carswell: Back in July the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told a Committee of this House, with regard to IMF obligations:
	“We have an agreement to fund up to £20 billion, broadly speaking.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 5 July 2011; c. 9.]
	Pretty broad, it turns out. We now hear that the figure is closer to £40 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to level with the British people, with no weasel words or sophistry, and that Ministers have an obligation to be absolutely straight about what they plan to do with other people’s money?

David Cameron: Let me be absolutely clear about this. There are two sorts of money that the UK provides to the IMF: money through our quota, which is effectively through our shareholding, and money through loans and other arrangements. There have been three votes in this House in the last three years on all the elements of
	the IMF money. As I have said, if it comes to giving extra support for the IMF, we want to do that within the headroom that has been set.

Mike Gapes: Are we not really dealing with a sophisticated form of Russian roulette, in which the Prime Minister tells us on the one hand that he does not think that it is right for eurozone countries to have their funding from the IMF cut off, but says on the other hand that at this stage there should be no additional money from the IMF? When will the stage be right for that additional IMF money?

David Cameron: There are 53 IMF programmes around the world, only three of which are in the eurozone, so in part it is a judgment for the IMF about when it needs to replenish its resources. Let me be clear about what needs to happen in the eurozone countries. They have to sort out the problems of the euro: they need that firewall, and it is Europe that effectively has to provide it. They need that recapitalisation and the demonstrable and clear write-down of Greek debts. Those are the things that they have responsibility for. We have responsibility, as an IMF shareholder, for bulking up the IMF finances at the right moment. I do not see that as Russian roulette; it is just very sensible economics and politics.

Louise Mensch: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what advice he has received on the consequences of failing to pay our IMF subscriptions, as so irresponsibly advocated by the Opposition?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not entirely sure what would have happened if we had turned up at the G20 having voted down the deal from the London G20 on increasing the IMF resources. First of all, we would have declined to implement one of the key findings of the last G20, and then we would have turned up and said that we were not prepared to see any increase in IMF funding for anything else. Britain would have been completely isolated and left out. The reason why the Opposition are talking about this is that it is all about the politics and nothing to do with the economics, and they know it.

Stewart Hosie: The Prime Minister said that the UK would not fund the EFSF, but it remains one of the eurozone’s most powerful tools, and there are two new powers proposed for it—to insure newly issued sovereign debt, and to spin out investment trusts to buy that debt. Do the Prime Minister and his Government believe that those powers will be enough to leverage the EFSF up to the €1 trillion or so required to give it the firepower that it needs?

David Cameron: There are still real difficulties with that. The EFSF and the idea of a special purpose vehicle were set out at the eurozone meeting 10 days ago, but the problem is that since then we have not seen enough detail on how exactly those funds would work and how they would be levered up. You need—I have used “bazooka” before—a bazooka big enough to convince people that you will not have to use it, and that is what the eurozone needs to do, but it has not yet completed that work.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In the interests of accommodating more colleagues, I now appeal for single, short supplementary questions and the Prime Minister’s characteristically pithy replies.

Julian Lewis: Why does the Prime Minister seem to think that the Greeks will be any more successful at staying in the euro than we were at trying to remain in the ERM?

David Cameron: One of the few advantages of the ERM was that you were able to get out of it, but one of the issues with the euro is that there is not a mechanism, properly and legally, for leaving it. If a country wanted to leave the euro, of course it could, but in the end this is an issue for the Greeks. They have to decide: do they accept the deal on the table that cuts their debt, and stay in the euro, or do they take a different path? The point I have been making is that they have to make up their mind for the rest of the world to move on.

Jeremy Corbyn: Was there any discussion at the G20 about the unaccountable power of the rating agencies to decide the future of national economies, or about the massive profits being made on short-term loans out of the poverty and austerity of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland—any discussion about control over the banking system, rather than bowing down to it?

David Cameron: There were concerns expressed, and they are frequently expressed, about the role of the ratings agencies and the way they are regulated. Sometimes, they come from politicians who have had a particularly rough time with the ratings agencies, but it is very important that we use organisations such as the Financial Stability Board to make sure that we get the answers right, rather than do it according to political fiat.

David Ruffley: We must have contingency plans if the eurozone breaks up. Does the Prime Minister agree that Parliament must be given a very early opportunity to scrutinise the adequacy of those contingency plans?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but that is quite a difficult ask, because there is of course important ongoing work on contingency plans, but the more we discuss and speculate on the nature of another country’s currency and economy, the more we could damage their interests. So, I will think carefully about what he says, but it might be difficult to air some of those issues in public.

Geraint Davies: The Prime Minister knows that the IMF currently gives 32.4 billion special drawing rights—about £32 billion—to the eurozone to prop it up, so how can he justify giving more British taxpayers’ money to the eurozone via the IMF when there are people starving in Africa and people cannot pay their heating bills in Britain?

David Cameron: No country has ever lost money lending it to the IMF. The IMF is, in a globalised world, a vital institution for supporting countries that get into
	deep economic distress, and, if we were to walk away from it and just to allow trading partners—in the eurozone or outside—to collapse with no one to help them, that would mean British jobs lost and British businesses going bust. It might give you a five-second soundbite on the news in order to try to give you some political advantage, but it would be completely irresponsible.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my right hon. Friend that Greece’s remaining in the eurozone is a matter for the Greek Government, and that there is no free hit for the break-up of the euro, but will he take time to read the Centre for Economics and Business Research paper, which points out that, for Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular, our economy will be growing faster in two years’ time if the euro breaks up than it will if we try to keep the currency going?

David Cameron: I have seen reports of the piece of work that my hon. Friend speaks about, and perhaps I will have time this evening to read it at greater leisure. We can look at the economic experts and what they say, but there is quite a strong consensus that the consequences of a country falling out of a single currency zone, where banks and businesses are very interrelated, are very serious for all the members concerned. As I say, if it happens, we will have contingency plans in place and we will have to manage them as best we can, but no one—however sceptical they are about the euro—should think there is an easy way for a country to leave.

Stuart Bell: Now that the Greeks will have a new Government who will ratify the 26-27 October agreements, and as the Group of Twenty is an informal grouping, would it not be appropriate, where there is agreement, for the group’s Finance Ministers to get together to help the European financial stability fund put together its firewall under the Sarkozy presidency?

David Cameron: The G20 Finance Ministers might have to meet again, but, as I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), only if a new set of arrangements is being put in place. Part of the problem in Europe is that, so often, meetings are scheduled without proper thought about what the outcome will be—about what will be achieved. That has been one of the things that have caused a huge amount of market turbulence over recent months.

Nadhim Zahawi: Figures out today show that EU productivity is falling at its fastest rate since 2009. The only big economy to record an expansion in output per worker is the UK. Why does the Prime Minister think that the United Kingdom can borrow at a 0.5% interest rate for one year’s money, compared with 4.7% for Spain and 6.3% for Italy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, in getting greater competitiveness across Europe, this is the most important thing that Europe could be doing right now: completing the single market, completing the market in energy, completing the market in services and making sure our economies are competitive. The point he makes about the bond market is vital, too. The fact is that if you do not have credibility, you
	cannot borrow money at low interest rates, and if you do not have credibility, interest rates go up. That would be the worst thing to hit your economy.

Graham Stringer: At summit after summit, the Prime Minister has argued to support a monetary union he does not really think is appropriate for this country and in which he does not believe, so that stability can be brought to Europe and the world. That has failed. How many more failures will it take and how many more summits will there be before he argues for what is really right for Europe: for those countries to return to their original currencies?

David Cameron: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, which has complete intellectual coherence. The fact is that they could go in that direction, but other European Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers and, indeed, the people in those countries will say that they do not want to leave the euro and that they want to make the euro work. We are affected by what is happening in the eurozone, which is why I keep saying that it is in our interests that they get their act together and make their currency work. You can argue for the opposite, but the fact is that that is what most European countries want and that is what I think they will try to achieve.

Peter Bone: I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers 16 September 1992—golden Wednesday—when the United Kingdom came out of the exchange rate mechanism, which was the start of our economic recovery. Why are the political elite of Europe denying Greece and other euro countries the same mechanism to improve their currency: withdrawal from the euro so they can re-establish their national currency?

David Cameron: I learned a very important lesson from our experience in the exchange rate mechanism: never fix interest rates in a way like that because you may need a different interest rate in your economy from that applying elsewhere. That is why I am so completely opposed to Britain ever joining the euro. I could not be clearer about that—unlike the Labour party, which spent 13 years planning and preparing for our eventual admission to the euro. We must allow other countries to make their own choices, and the choice of people in Greece—it is their business—seems to be that they want to stay in the euro. That is not the choice I would necessarily make—or that Mrs Bone, or even Mr Bone, would necessarily make—but that is the choice they seem to want to make and we have to support them in it.

David Anderson: Another report came out today from the Institute for Public Policy Research showing that 32,000 jobs in the public sector were lost in the north-east last year while the number of private sector jobs also went down, and the number of public sector jobs in London and the south-east went up. Why should the Europeans trust the action plan from the Prime Minister when his inaction plan in this country is destroying the regions of this country?

David Cameron: Of course there has to be a rebalancing of public sector and private sector jobs in our economy, and of course there are difficult circumstances
	faced by different parts of the country, but in the north-east we have seen the expansion of the Nissan plant, and we have the new Hitachi train plant going into the north-east as well. What we need to do as a country is to become more competitive—to start manufacturing and making things again, which will benefit all the regions of our country.

Tony Baldry: Would not France, among other countries, do rather more to help developing countries if it met its own UN target for international development, as we are doing, rather than exhorting those of us who are meeting our UN targets to sign up to a financial transactions tax?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. Some other countries are using the cover of a financial transactions tax to get off the fact that they have not met their targets for overseas development assistance. In all the figures that we bandy around about the financial transactions tax, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that around 80% of it would be raised from businesses in the United Kingdom. I am sometimes tempted to ask the French whether they would like a cheese tax.

Ronnie Campbell: Seeing that the European Central Bank has been told to sit on its hands, obviously by the Germans, is it not time that the Prime Minister reminded the Germans that it was the Marshall plan that saved their country after the war?

David Cameron: The European Central Bank is independent; no one is able to tell it what to do. There is a very strong case for saying that the eurozone institutions, including the ECB, need to do more to stand behind their currency and their currency zone, but we have to understand why the Germans feel as strongly as they do, and it is partly based on their history and what they feel went wrong in the 1920s and ’30s. None the less, I think that the argument that the ECB and the eurozone institutions need to do more is right.

Margot James: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to listen to Labour and ease our deficit reduction strategy, our interest rates would soar towards Italian levels and away from German levels, and will he explain to the British taxpayer what that would be likely to cost in increased interest payments?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just a question of the extra interest payments the Government would have to pay, although that would be pretty crippling for the taxpayer; it is also the fact that those higher interest rates would affect business investment and the mortgages that people pay. We could see a really bad effect on households and business as well as on the Government finances.

Nicholas Dakin: When will the G20 show global leadership and produce a plan for growth and a plan for jobs?

David Cameron: The point about the global plan for growth and jobs—and the reason it is worth while, and the whole of the G20 process is worth while—is that different countries are committing to doing different things at the same time to maximise global growth. It is
	quite clear that Britain needs to get on top of its debts and its deficit and export more; it is also clear that China needs to grow its consumption, grow its middle class, and import more. If we all do these things at the same time, we will find that we can maximise global growth and increase employment levels too.

David Nuttall: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s statement that the UK should not contribute to any further eurozone bail-out fund, but how can UK taxpayers be certain that our contributions to the IMF will not be used for such purposes when the UK has only 4.29% of the vote on the IMF governing body?

David Cameron: The IMF has extremely tough and clear rules about when it can and when it cannot lend money. That is why it cannot put, and nor would we support its putting, money into a euro bail-out fund or into a special purpose vehicle. That is not the role of the IMF—that must be the role of the European financial stability facility—but what the IMF can do is lend money and help countries that are in distress. As I said, no country has ever lost money on lending it to the IMF, because it is the senior creditor in all these arrangements.

Andrew Love: The Prime Minister keeps talking about rebalancing the economy. We have seen a 20% to 25% reduction in the value of the pound, which should have made us competitive, yet the private sector is not taking up the slack because there is no confidence out there. Do we not need another plan to build confidence?

David Cameron: The worst thing we could do for confidence would be to abandon the plans to deal with our debt and our deficit, because we can see what is happening in countries such as Italy that do not have a proper plan for getting on top of their debts: they have higher interest rates and all the problems that they bring. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have had a depreciation in our currency that should lead us to be more competitive. If one looks at the export figures from Britain to countries such as India and China, one sees that there is a good increase in our exports.

Harriett Baldwin: My constituents do not want to pay taxes to bail out the euro. Will the Prime Minister remind us who got this country into the permanent EFSF and who got us out of it?

David Cameron: None of our constituents wants to pay taxes to bail out the eurozone; that is not what our taxes should go towards. When we came to office we were part of the European financial stabilisation mechanism—the EFSM. I have got us out of that from 2013, but between now and then we are still at risk because of a very bad decision to which the previous Government agreed.

Derek Twigg: If the eurozone continues to fail to deal with the crisis, what actions will the Prime Minister take to protect the interests of the UK?

David Cameron: We must put in place contingency plans for any of these countries leaving the eurozone. The hon. Gentleman asks what those plans are. For obvious reasons, if we start to describe exactly what we might have to do, we could set off all sorts of chain reactions. If he wants to discuss privately with a Treasury Minister the elements of any plan, he is at liberty to do so.

Philip Hollobone: Is it the Prime Minister’s understanding that were Greece, Italy or any other country to leave the eurozone, it would require a treaty change?

David Cameron: I believe my hon. Friend is right that there is nothing in the treaties that allows a eurozone member to leave the eurozone yet stay in the European Union. My sense is that were that to happen, some allowance would be made. He is right to say that that would involve a treaty change at some stage to ensure that it was legal.

Sheila Gilmore: The Prime Minister has suggested that he is in favour of a global financial transaction tax. That will happen on a global basis only if people take the lead. What my constituents wanted to know when they contacted me was what steps the Prime Minister took at the Cannes summit to promote that tax.

David Cameron: I spoke on the financial transaction tax at the session where it was discussed and said that we supported it at a global level. I made a few of the points that I have made in the House today because sitting around the table were the representatives of European countries and institutions, including the European Commission, that have spent this money several times over. When we talk about the European budget, it is given as the great way to raise money for that; when we talk about development, it is given as the way that we will pay for development; when we talk about climate change, it suddenly becomes the magic way to meet all our climate change commitments. Frankly, I do not think that we should allow other European countries to get away with that.

Ben Wallace: It is highly likely that China’s condition for buying into eurozone debt will be the lifting of the EU-wide arms embargo, which would be directly against Britain’s national interests given its defence industry base and the tens of thousands of jobs that are dependent on it. Given that that would require a unanimous decision by all EU member states, will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK Government would veto such a request?

David Cameron: We do not support the lifting of the arms embargo. In the discussions at the G20, there was not some sort of shopping list from the Chinese—a rather unfair point that some have made. Clearly, it is in China’s interests, just as it is in our interests, that the eurozone crisis is dealt with. China has huge export markets in Europe and it owns huge amounts of European debt. That is why China, like Britain, subscribes to the IMF and will support an increase in its resources.

Wayne David: The Prime Minister has said that the action plan for growth and jobs includes many of the things that Britain is already doing. I can assume only that it is a very thin document. How many minutes were spent talking about job creation at the summit?

David Cameron: A great deal of the first day was spent talking about the condition of the world economy, and particularly the fact that economies in the developed world are obviously seeing very low rates of growth. I also had a meeting, I am pleased to report, with the leader of the TUC and other international trade unionists, to discuss specifically growth and jobs, and how we can try to prevent youth unemployment from rising in western European countries. I do not know whether all my predecessors always found time for such meetings at the G20, but I was delighted to have one.

Jo Johnson: Did the Prime Minister see at the G20 any evidence that eurozone leaders were becoming clearer that it is an entirely fanciful notion to expect China to bail out eurozone countries whose GDP is many times its own?

David Cameron: I would not underestimate the huge pressure that the eurozone leaders are under to come up with a solution to the crisis in the eurozone. Clearly some of them have huge ideological difficulties with seeing a greater role for eurozone institutions. I do not think it is completely out of the question that other countries—China, or Saudi Arabia—might at some stage want to contribute to a eurozone fund, not least because the risk would be taken with the eurozone money and not with the Chinese or other money. In the end, however, there is no substitute for the eurozone acting first to sort out its difficulties.

Stephen McCabe: Which were the countries persuaded by the Prime Minister that they had space to borrow for what he calls “further discretionary measures”?

David Cameron: A list in the action plan for growth and jobs specifically states that countries such as Canada, China and others could borrow more. They are set out in the communiqué, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will not take the advice of Opposition Members and increase the deficit to boost growth artificially? The consequent rise in interest rates and inflation would cause enormous damage to small businesses and families right across this country.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we went to the G20 summit arguing for a £20 billion increase in borrowing this year, or the increase that Labour supports of £87 billion over the Parliament, at the same time as saying that we were going to get out of the IMF, I think the G20 would conclude that we were completely barking.

Sarah Wollaston: The more a balloon is inflated, the more it hurts when it eventually explodes. Would it not be better for us to help the Greeks default and devalue now rather than later?

David Cameron: We have argued very consistently that part of any solution has to be a very decisive writing down of Greek debt, because it obviously cannot afford the level of debt that it currently has. That is the plan that it is being offered. Some would argue that even that is not enough, and that is my hon. Friend’s position, but our view has always been that unless the debts are written down significantly, there will not be a proper solution.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend has rightly argued that fixing the eurozone is a matter for eurozone countries. May I welcome the fact that he has announced that we are making contingency plans for the possibility of that failing?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, it is difficult to say more about it in the House, but I will discuss with Treasury Ministers whether we can say a little bit more. If Members have contributions that they want to make or concerns about elements of any contingency plan, which would have to be very wide ranging and cover all sorts of different eventualities, they should talk to Treasury Ministers.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Prime Minister have an estimate of the liability that the UK would have incurred had we not excluded ourselves from the European financial stability mechanism bail-out fund that the Labour Government supported?

David Cameron: One thing that we have managed to keep out of is the European element of the Greek bail-out. That has had two iterations, and we were not involved in the first or the second. The specific idea of using the EFSM to support Greece was batted away by Britain.

Sam Gyimah: One of the key issues about the eurozone is the need to recapitalise a number of European banks, especially those that are quite weak. What comments can the Prime Minister make about the relative strength of UK banks, and will he say that the UK taxpayer will not have to stump up any more cash to recapitalise our banks?

David Cameron: On the current plan for the recapitalisation of European banks, British banks would not require any additional capital because they are quite well capitalised already. There is a concern that needs to be expressed that as the Europeans move to recapitalise their banks, it is quite important that they do not do that purely by shrinking bank balance sheets, and that they encourage banks to find fresh sources of capital so that lending does not decrease in the European Union.

Stewart Jackson: Are we not in danger of ignoring the political reality of the current situation, which is that saving the euro at almost any cost is in the long-term interests of Germany, but
	not necessarily that of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom? That being so, surely the ECB and not the IMF must be the lender of last resort.

David Cameron: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s last point. The point about the future of the euro is that we should take a very hard-headed, national-interest view. All the evidence is that a disorderly break-up of the euro would have very bad effects on all the economies within Europe, and bad effects on Britain. One can make longer-term arguments about what it might mean and how things might change but, in the short-term, there is no doubt that when we are trying to secure growth and jobs in this country a disorderly break-up of the eurozone would not be good for Britain.

Kris Hopkins: May I thank the Prime Minister for the thoughtful and constructive leadership that he offered at the G20? The debate has focused quite narrowly on Greece in recent weeks. What is his interpretation of the emerging situation in Italy?

David Cameron: We all have to be careful not to speculate on other countries, but the requirement of those who are lending money to Italy is a clear and consistent plan for Italy getting on top of its debts and deficit. When they see that, interest rates will come back down again. However, that is a lesson to any country that if they do not have credibility in the markets, their interest rates can go up quite quickly.

Karen Bradley: Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK already has a financial transactions tax—one that raises around £3 billion a year? It is just that we call it stamp duty.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One point that Bill Gates made to me is that if other European countries introduce stamp duty on shares, they might find that they can get to the 0.7% of GDP that they are meant to be giving in overseas development assistance without having a financial transactions tax. If they care about overseas development, as this Government do, that might be quite a good answer.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We have two further statements to follow and programmed business. I am sorry to have to disappoint a few colleagues today, but that is the way it is.

UK Border Force

Theresa May: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK border force, an operational division of the UK Border Agency. The border force is responsible for ensuring that only legitimate travellers and goods are allowed to enter and leave the UK, while reducing threats including illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorism.
	Border force activities include verifying the immigration status of passengers arriving and departing the UK; checking baggage, vehicles and cargo for illicit goods; and searching for illegal immigrants. Border force officers confirm the identity of passengers arriving at the UK border; check passengers against a watch list known as the warnings index; and undertake a visual inspection of passengers’ passports. Where a biometric passport is held, the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, is opened and verified.
	Non-EU passengers undergo additional checks. Officers establish whether a visa is required and whether a visa is held. If the passenger has a biometric visa, a fingerprint database check can be made, and officers decide whether the passenger should be granted entry to the UK.
	In the past, under the previous Government, some of those checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border. In the summer of 2008, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area nationals—children and adults—on Eurostar services. At Calais, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area and UK car passengers—again, adults as well as children were not run against the index. Since 2008, at various ports and airports, that happened on more than 100 occasions.
	Officials tell me that once, in 2004, local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made. To prevent that from happening again, and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that the UK Border Agency could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers.
	Initial options had been put to the then security Minister and the immigration Minister in January, who agreed them as a basis for further work. That resulted in proposals for a risk-based strategy coming to me in April. After further work, I agreed an amended and limited pilot scheme in July, which meant that, under limited circumstances, EEA national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index—designed to detect terrorists and serious criminals—when assessed by a border force official to be a credible risk.
	The pilot also allowed, under limited circumstances, border force officials the discretion to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, on the passports of EEA nationals. Those circumstances were that the measures would always be subject to a risk-based assessment, that they should not be routine and that the volume of passengers would be such that border security would be stronger with more risk-based checks and fewer mandatory checks than with more mandatory
	checks on low-risk passengers and fewer risk-based checks for high-risk passengers. The advice of security officials was sought and they confirmed that they were content with the measures.
	I want everybody to understand what was supposed to happen under the terms of the pilot. In usual circumstances, all checks would be carried out on all passengers. Under the risk-based controls, everybody’s passports would be checked; nobody would be waved through; visa nationals’ fingerprints would be checked; all non-EEA nationals’ biometric chips would be checked; all adults would be run past the warnings index; all non-EEA nationals would be run past the warnings index; and border officials would be free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chips of EEA passengers and to check EEA children travelling with parents or a school group against the warnings index.
	The pilot was extended on 19 September and was due to end last Friday. The results are not yet fully evaluated, but UKBA’s statistics show that, compared with the same period last year, the number of illegal immigrants detected increased by nearly 10%. Last week, John Vine, the independent chief inspector of UKBA, raised concerns with Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of UKBA, that security checks were not being implemented properly. On Wednesday, the head of the UK border force, Brodie Clark, confirmed to Mr Whiteman that border controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval.
	First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval. Biometric tests on non-EEA nationals are also thought to have been abandoned on occasions, again without ministerial approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without ministerial approval. Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval. I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of these decisions. Indeed, I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed.
	As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the warnings index. Following Mr Clark’s conversation with Mr Whiteman, the latter carried out further investigations and on Thursday morning he suspended Mr Clark from duty with immediate effect. The Home Office permanent secretary, the immigration Minister and I were notified of his decision that morning. The pilot scheme, which had been due to end the next day, was suspended immediately, and on Friday two other border force officials, Graeme Kyle, director of operations at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of border force south and European operations, were also suspended from duty on a precautionary basis.
	There is nothing more important than the security of our border, and because of the seriousness of these allegations I have ordered a number of investigations. Dave Wood, the head of the UKBA enforcement and crime group and a former Metropolitan police officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place. Mike Anderson, the director general of immigration,
	is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark; and John Vine, the chief inspector, will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened with the checks across the UKBA, how the chain of command in the border force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future. For the sake of clarity, I am happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers. That investigation will begin immediately and will report by the end of January. I will place the terms of reference for the inquiries in the House of Commons Library.
	Border security is fundamental to our national security and our policy of reducing and controlling immigration. The pilots run by the UK border force this summer were designed to improve border security by focusing resources on passengers and journeys that intelligence led officers to believe posed the greatest risk. The vast majority of those officers are hard-working, dedicated public servants. Just like all of us, they want to see tough immigration controls and strong enforcement, but they have been let down by senior officials at the head of the organisation who put at risk the security of our border. Our task now is to make sure—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting, but the Home Secretary must be heard. I know that these are matters about which Members rightly feel extremely strongly, although in fairness we might note in passing that on Friday Members of the Youth Parliament felt extremely strongly about the five motions on which they spoke, but they listened to each other with courtesy.

Theresa May: Our task now is to ensure that those responsible are punished and that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do, and I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and welcome her agreement to establish an independent inquiry. That inquiry must get to the truth, but it should do so considerably more rapidly than by January.
	Reports have already reached me from the UK Border Agency today that the shredders are on and that there is a ban on internal e-mails. Will the Home Secretary look urgently into those allegations, and into what documents perhaps are being shredded and what e-mails deleted in the Home Office and the UKBA on this issue? It is also important that the inquiry has access to all communications between Ministers, the Home Office and the UKBA. The scope must cover the resource pressures facing the UKBA. We now know that 6,500 staff are being cut from the agency, including 1,500 from the border force. We need to know what pressures officials were put under to cut corners as a result and keep queues down with reduced staff.
	We also need some answers from the Home Secretary now. In questions earlier and in her statement, she could not tell the House how many people came through our ports and airports this summer without proper checks. On average, 100,000 foreign citizens enter Britain every day. UKBA staff have claimed that reduced checks were in place almost daily from August, lasting at least half of the shift. How many people were not checked
	against the watch list? How many people did not have their biometrics checked? What is the Home Secretary’s estimate of whether anyone from the watch list entered Britain at that time? Did any convicted criminals or security suspects enter? The truth is that the Home Secretary does not know. She says that we will never know. Even now, she seems to be doing nothing to find out and assess who has entered the country and what the security risk might be.
	The Home Secretary has admitted that she took the decision to reduce checks for EU citizens in July—not checking under-18s against the warnings index or doing biometric checks on EU passports—yet she will know that cases have been identified by border officials involving EU citizens, including people involved in organised crime, people trafficking, falsifying passports or removals of children who are wards of court. She made that decision—not Labour Ministers in the past: this Home Secretary—and that decision is her responsibility. She cannot run away from it or hide behind cases from 2004, long before new systems were introduced. She knows that the intention of Labour—and, we had assumed, Conservative—Ministers was to roll out e-Borders and to put the technology in place so that everyone could be properly screened entering and exiting the country, and not only at quiet times. In fact, the immigration Minister claimed in May that 90% of non-EU flights and 60% of EU flights were covered, but it turns out that he meant 90% of flights in the winter or at quiet times in the afternoons.
	The truth is that instead of strengthening the checks year on year, as all previous Ministers had committed to do, this Home Secretary decided to water them down, as official Government policy, even though she never told the House. She has blamed officials for relaxing the checks further than she intended, yet she gave the green light for the weaker controls. She claimed in her statement that she did not intend it to be routine not to check the biometric chip in EEA passports, yet I have a copy of the interim operational instruction that she has refused to publish, which states:
	“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports, checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the warnings index”.
	It adds:
	“If for whatever reason it is considered necessary to take further measures, local managers must escalate to the Border force duty director to seek authority for their proposed action.”
	So the Home Secretary gave agency staff the green light to go ahead and experiment to meet the pressures from queues, and look how far they went. A member of the Border Agency staff said this morning:
	“Every day I let in 10 people who I think there would be a good case against”.
	How on earth did Ministers not know about this? How on earth could there be continual complaints from staff for months without the immigration Minister or the Home Secretary knowing what was going on? At best, they were deeply out of touch; at worst, they were complicit in a loss of control at our borders.
	This Home Secretary is presiding over growing chaos and corner cutting at our borders: Raed Salah was banned from this country by the Home Office, yet he was allowed to waltz in at Heathrow; 100,000 asylum
	cases have been written off as just too difficult to deal with; Ministers have now given the green light to an experiment to water down, rather than increase, border controls; and the Home Secretary does not even know how many people entered Britain without proper checks this summer. Thousands of people entered without proper checks, and without the Home Secretary having a clue what was going on. It is no good blaming the previous Government, or blaming officials. This is happening on her watch, these are her decisions, and this is her Government’s mistake. She needs to get a grip and stop passing the buck.

Theresa May: I must say that I regret that response from the right hon. Lady. There is no more serious issue than border security, but, instead of engaging with the facts, she has chosen to play party politics. She knows that the checks that I approved and the relaxation of checks, which I did not approve, are two very different matters.
	Let me take her points in turn. She alleges that the pilot scheme and the unauthorised actions were the result of cuts. I explained the basis for the pilot scheme in my statement. I would remind her that the last Government were planning to cut the UK Border Agency and that it remains the stated policy of her party in opposition to cut the Home Office budget. She mentioned in passing that the House had not been informed about the pilot programme, but it has never been the policy of any Government to notify the House of operational matters such as those. Her own Government did not notify the House when they introduced a risk-based warnings index policy, or when they let passengers through Heathrow without even looking at their passports.
	The right hon. Lady suggests that the problem was related not to unauthorised official actions but to the measures that we piloted in July. Let me remind the House again that, as I said in my statement, these measures allowed greater intelligence-led checks to be made against higher-risk passengers. Does the right hon. Lady think that was wrong; if so, why did the last Government introduce a warnings index policy that allowed risk-based checks back in 2007?
	Let me remind the right hon. Lady of what I said. The pilot allowed officials in limited circumstances to use their discretion whether to check the biometric chip of EEA nationals and whether to run EEA nationals’ children travelling in family groups or school groups against the warnings index. Under her Government in similar circumstances, adults were not run against the warnings index, and on at least one occasion at Heathrow the border was opened up, so no checks were made against inbound passengers. She says that officials at UKBA are telling her that they were suspicious about individuals, yet they were being let through. It was clear in the guidance on the policy that for any EEA national or EEA national child against whom suspicion was felt, the officer should do the necessary biometric chip checks or warnings index checks.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether the inquiry should include the decisions of Ministers as well as officials. I have already said that I am happy for John Vine’s investigation to look at what decisions were taken by Ministers and when. She asked about the publication of paperwork between Ministers and officials. We will certainly make all the relevant paperwork available to the investigations. I can assure her and the House that
	the paperwork will show without ambiguity that the relaxation of checks that occurred was not sanctioned by me.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether any dangerous individuals had managed to come to Britain. That is a very serious issue; that is why I addressed it in my statement. I made it clear to the House that we are not in a position to be able to say how many people entered who should have been prevented after being flagged by the warnings index. We would have known, however, if anybody had tried to enter the country during the pilot, as the pilot was due to operate, because all adults were run past the warnings index and all non-EEA passengers were checked against that index. It was only EEA nationals’ children travelling with their parents or in a school group who were not automatically run against the warnings index. That is more stringent than the controls put in place by the last Government, who in similar circumstances did not check all adults against the warnings index.
	I have said on a number of occasions that there is nothing more important than the security of our border, and I made clear in my statement the measures we are taking to address the lapse. In addition, we are reforming every route to the UK to reduce net migration; we are clearing the asylum backlog; we are improving removals; we are addressing the problem of article 8; and we are creating a border policing command in our National Crime Agency to improve our border security in the long term.
	I will take no lectures, however, from the party that gave us a total net migration of more than 2.2 million people, the foreign national prisoners scandal, Sangatte, widespread abuse of student visas, the botched e-Borders contract, a 450,000 asylum backlog, no transitional controls for eastern Europeans, the Human Rights Act and a points-based system that failed to reduce immigration. My task now is to make sure that those responsible for this lapse are properly dealt with and to make sure that border force officials can never take these risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many colleagues wish to participate in the debate on this statement. I know that a fine example of the brevity required will now be provided by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

David Davis: The shadow Home Secretary used the phrase “deeply out of touch” and “complicit in a loss of control at our borders”, which is, of course, a perfect description of Labour policy for the last decade. The Home Secretary made a decision on 22 July this year which only she could make, simply because she is the only person with advice from the security agencies. Can she tell us in broad terms what that advice was?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that security officials were asked about the proposals being put forward and they indicated that they were entirely satisfied with them.

Jack Straw: No one is asking the Home Secretary to take lectures. What she is being asked to do is take responsibility for the shambles over which she is presiding, 18 months into the Government’s term of office. Will she now answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? How on earth did it come about that neither her immigration Minister nor she spotted that—as she claims—her instructions were not being followed? Does she never talk to immigration officers, or go to a port or an airport?

Theresa May: I do indeed go to airports and I do indeed talk to immigration officers, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I find my discussions with immigration officers very fruitful because of the ideas they advance about better measures that we could take to improve security at our borders and reduce immigration, which is, of course, what the Government intend to do. Last week, during a period when the pilot was due to be operating, the chief inspector spoke to the chief executive of UKBA to express his concerns. As a result, conversations were held with the head of the UK border force, which led to the action that is now being taken.

James Clappison: I warmly welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend is taking, including the inquiry that she has instituted. Can she confirm that anyone who has illegally entered the UK as a result of these events will not benefit from an amnesty instituted by Ministers, as happened repeatedly under the last Government? Can she also confirm that such cases will not be allowed to pile up in a backlog of 500,000, as earlier cases did, including the 100,000 to which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) had the gall to refer?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that point. It was the actions of the last Government that led to the build-up of more than 450,000 asylum cases, which has only just been cleared. We are now able to operate a much more efficient asylum system. I can also assure my hon. Friend that this Government are not in favour of allowing an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

David Blunkett: Last year the Government announced the abandoning of second-generation biometrics; we had not expected them to abandon first-generation biometrics quite so quickly.
	I realise that we are dealing with a ministerial graveyard —as some of us know very well—but what monitoring and reporting mechanisms were introduced by Ministers so that they could be informed of the progress of the pilot programme and whether it was being eroded at the edges?

Theresa May: We ensured that there would be a proper evaluation of the pilot programme. The point of making it a pilot programme was to establish whether it would indeed be possible to target those who constituted a higher risk in terms of border security, and whether there would be benefits from such action. As I have said, the pilot ended last week, and the full results of the evaluation have not yet been made available.

Anne Main: The Home Secretary read out a litany of occasions on which rules had been relaxed under the last Government. Is she aware of the guidance that was given in each of those cases, and does she believe that that relaxation may have contributed to a laxity in the system which has led officials to feel they need not always follow the rules to the letter?

Theresa May: I am aware of some of the guidance that was published at the time, which stated, for instance, that details of EEA nationals arriving on services that had been assessed as low or very low risk should be checked only on a targeted basis. Various relaxations were introduced at the time. I have asked the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency not only to assess what has been happening across the board in terms of checks, but to examine the processes for ensuring that Ministers’ decisions are properly undertaken, recorded, passed down and acted on, and that no one goes further than that.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the appointment of John Vine. I also thank the Home Secretary for agreeing to give evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs tomorrow, when we will probe her further on these matters. She will know that successive Select Committee reports have told successive Governments about the culture of complacency that exists at the highest levels of the UK Border Agency, yet senior officials were paid £90,000 in bonuses last year. May I urge her to turn this crisis into an opportunity? If the Vine report suggests a root-and-branch change in the way in which the agency is operating, will she please accept those recommendations—along with the recommendations of the Select Committee—and implement them?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I was, of course, looking forward to appearing before his Select Committee in any case, and as that happens to have fallen at this time, I will, indeed, look forward to answering questions on this matter. There have over the years been reports that have rightly raised concerns about the operation of the UK Border Agency and what has been happening at our borders. I have made it absolutely clear to the chief inspector that I look forward to him not only reporting on what has happened, but bringing forward recommendations as to how we can in future better ensure we are maintaining our border security.

Tom Brake: Does the Home Secretary expect any of the reviews that she has initiated to recommend that retrospective checks be carried out on any people who got into the UK over the period in question and on whom partial information had been captured, and what would such retrospective checks involve?

Theresa May: I do not expect the investigations by Dave Wood and Mike Anderson to come up with such a recommendation, because they are specifically examining what happened in relation to certain individuals. Chief inspector John Vine’s report will tell us in more detail what has happened over the period in question across the board, rather than at just a number of ports. I have to say, however, that I doubt that he will come forward with specific recommendations on any individual.

Alun Michael: From the Home Secretary’s very defensive responses, we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?

Theresa May: As I said in my statement, my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.

Nicola Blackwood: Evidence to the Home Affairs Committee showed that while the agency was truly chaotic under the last Government, significant problems remain in respect of its ability to protect our borders properly. It is clear the agency is in need of urgent and real reform. As a start, can the Home Secretary assure me and my constituents that the Government will swiftly press ahead with the creation of a border policing command?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will, indeed, be pressing ahead with the establishment of a border policing command inside the National Crime Agency. I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that the new chief executive of UKBA, Rob Whiteman, who has been in place for five weeks, has already done a lot of work in assessing what changes are required to ensure UKBA staff operate the maximum level of security.

Paul Goggins: Can the Home Secretary confirm that all airports, including Manchester, were included in the pilot? If so, can she confirm whether those who run Manchester airport and the airlines that operate there were made aware of the pilot?

Theresa May: I do not believe that Manchester was included in the pilot, but I will, of course, check that I am right about that because—

Chris Bryant: It’s your pilot!

Theresa May: Yes, it is my pilot, and the arrangements for that pilot were made known to UKBA officials at the various ports where it was operating.

Henry Smith: My constituency contains the nation’s second-busiest air gateway, and a majority of my constituents are deeply concerned about immigration. Will the Secretary of State say whether Gatwick was part of the pilot? If so, when her investigations are complete, will she tell us how many people came through during that period? Will she also confirm that national security will always be a greater priority than the length of the queues in immigration halls?

Theresa May: Yes, indeed Gatwick was included. It was possible for the pilot to be operated across all the ports; it was not specified for any particular ports. There was a focus on particular ports, but Gatwick was included and I believe that Manchester was too.

Pete Wishart: Does that mean that the airports in Scotland were included? If there are issues for the airports in Scotland, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with Scottish Ministers on this issue?

Theresa May: The answer is yes. If, as I say, it is “all the ports”, it includes all the ports, including those in Scotland. I will be happy to be in touch with Scottish Ministers about this.

Alok Sharma: Lord Glasman, a close adviser of the leader of the Labour party, told us:
	“Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration”—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is a statement about Government policy. That is the purpose of the exercise, let us be clear.

Peter Bone: On Friday, while in my constituency, I received a phone call from someone who had been in the country illegally since 1965. This person had left the country, had been prevented by border officials from coming back in and then recently—on that very day—had been given six months to stay here. It is a question not just of checking these people, but of doing something about them when we see them.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and this is why we have an exercise in place to improve our ability to remove people who are in this country without having a right to be here.

Nick Raynsford: Given the UK Border Agency’s reputation for mishaps and inefficiency, and the sensitivity of this issue, why did the Home Secretary bring this pilot into force without making arrangements for checking at regular and frequent intervals how it was actually working in practice? Why did it take three months before this failure emerged?

Theresa May: As I indicated in my statement, the pilot was for a limited period of time. It was exactly what it said: a pilot to test whether the operation was going to ensure that we could target higher-risk individuals, rather than routinely checking everybody in certain categories. The evaluation of the pilot would have led to a decision as to whether or not it was appropriate to continue that in any further way. This was for a limited period and the full evaluation was to take place at the end.

Michael Ellis: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is perfectly in order to give very well-paid, high-level senior officials some common-sense discretion, but if they go further than their discretion—further than is authorised by Ministers—and weaken our borders, it is appropriate to look at criminal sanctions for any misconduct?

Theresa May: I can say to my hon. Friend that if there is any evidence that the law has been broken and that criminal charges are appropriate, that will be pursued.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary consider the question of staffing levels throughout the UK Border Agency? I am talking about the effect they have in respect of enormous queues at Heathrow and other airports, which become a deterrent to legitimate travellers; the inability of that agency to respond to written inquiries from people, including MPs; and the situation where the agency apparently cannot cope with its work load.

Theresa May: As I made clear in my statement, this was not an issue about staffing levels; this was a pilot that was intended to help us understand whether it was possible, with different arrangements, to make more intelligence-led checks on higher-risk individuals. We have made it clear that it is going to be possible to improve the border operations through the use of greater technology—the use of e-gates is an important element in that. The hon. Gentleman refers to letters written by MPs, but I must say to him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is responsible for signing— dealing with—about 60,000 letters on immigration matters each year.

Julian Huppert: There has been a catalogue of problems in UKBA for many years, as was shown in a recent Select Committee report before this case took place. We had seen the disasters of the asylum backlog, which has not quite gone away; poor decision making; cases being dropped; and a huge number of successful appeal rates. Fixing this has defeated many previous Home Secretaries, so how can we be sure that this one will resolve it?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to say that over the years—this is the point I have been making—successive Governments have come across difficulties in the operation of UKBA, or its predecessor organisation in the Home Office, in relation to security checks and border controls. This coalition Government are taking the right steps, by establishing the border police command, to strengthen our ability to deal with controls at our border. But, as I indicated in my answer to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), it will of course be for us to look at any recommendations that come from the chief inspector’s investigation in order to see whether further action is necessary to put in place what we all want: a system to ensure that UKBA can maintain the security of our borders in the way we wish.

Derek Twigg: In her statement, the Home Secretary said that the controls had been relaxed without any ministerial approval, but she did not mention knowledge. Will she confirm whether the Prime Minister, No. 10, she, her Ministers, the permanent secretary at the Department or her private offices had any knowledge whatever of those relaxations and controls?

Theresa May: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the first I was aware of them was when I was informed by the permanent secretary that action had been taken against Brodie Clark, who is the head of the UK border force.

Chris Kelly: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Will she tell the House which months, on previous performance, saw the most
	interceptions and whether they were the same months as those we are talking about today?

Theresa May: Yes, they are the same months that we are talking about today.

Gerald Kaufman: Is it not a fact that under this Home Secretary’s watch, something like 100,000 people, possibly including terrorists, have vanished into the undergrowth with nobody knowing where they are? When the Home Secretary said again and again in her statement “without ministerial approval”, was she not admitting that she does not have a grip on her Department? The responsibility ends with her.

Theresa May: I have been perfectly clear with the House that I take responsibility for the decisions I have made, and I have done that this afternoon. In the circumstances that have been set out, what we have seen is a pilot that was agreed, and actions going beyond that—unauthorised actions—taking place at our border.

Rob Wilson: The Public and Commercial Services Union is alleging that staff cuts and staff shortages caused the relaxation of these rules. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity completely to reject those allegations?

Theresa May: Yes, I will take that opportunity. It was clear when the proposals for the pilot were presented to me that the desire was to ensure that more risk-based checks could be made and therefore that we would target resources on higher-risk individuals. In doing that, it could well be possible to improve security, but, of course, evaluating whether that was the case was the purpose of ensuring that this was only a pilot.

Michael McCann: Having served as a full-time official in the civil service trade union movement for 26 years, may I say that if a civil servant under the senior civil service had wilfully disobeyed an instruction he would have been guilty of gross misconduct and would have been summarily dismissed? If the matter is as clear-cut as the Home Secretary suggests, will she tell us why Brodie Clark is not facing the same sanction?

Theresa May: Because a proper process is being undertaken. Further investigation by Dave Wood is taking place to ascertain the full extent of what happened.

David Ruffley: I trust my right hon. Friend to sort out the sloppy and lax management culture that has prevailed at this agency for too long. May I ask about her excellent idea for a border police command? When will it be introduced and how many police will be detailed to it? What the public want now is even more reassurance that our borders are going to be safe.

Theresa May: The intention is that the National Crime Agency will be established in 2013. It will be necessary for legislation to go through the House to establish the NCA and the border police command will be part of the national crime agency. I am not able, at this point, to
	say how many police will go to the border police command. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, given what has taken place, it is now necessary for us to have another look at exactly what we intend to do with that border police command.

Stephen McCabe: When the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) told Charles Clarke
	“because of this culpable failure to protect the safety of the public,”
	your
	“position is now untenable”—[Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 575.],
	I am afraid he was right. Why is that remark any less right for this Home Secretary today?

Theresa May: I think I have explained in my statement and in answers to questions exactly what happened.

Philip Hollobone: In her statement, my right hon. Friend said that border officials were free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chip of EEA passengers. Given that biometrics are meant to speed things up and provide greater security, I and my constituents would want every passport holder with a biometric chip to have their passport checked.

Theresa May: Perhaps I should repeat what I said about the biometric chip. The biometric chip holds within it a second photograph. That is all it holds within it. The decision was taken under the pilot to allow discretion to be operated in relation to EEA nationals and the opening of the biometric chip on a risk-based approach. I am sure my hon. Friend would want a border force that ensures it is targeting those who place most at risk individuals living in the United Kingdom.

Pat Glass: Is not the real issue that any pilot that relaxes security and immigration checks at our borders is a disaster waiting to happen, and that is what we have—a disaster that has happened?

Theresa May: I explained in my statement the reasons for undertaking the pilot and also the fact that during the period that the pilot was undertaken, the number of illegal immigrants who were detected at the border increased. I think that rather improves security.

Sajid Javid: Government figures show that by 2010 illegal immigration had reached an all-time high of more than 700,000 in our country. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK Border Agency is solely responsible for this shambolic state of affairs?

Theresa May: The UK Border Agency is the body responsible for putting in place the policy that is agreed for dealing with immigrants at the borders. The UK Border Agency does very good work—I have seen it for myself at Calais—in interrupting illegal immigrants who are trying to enter this country. It is doing that work on a daily basis to try to ensure that we reduce the number of illegal immigrants. This Government are the Government who are trying to do something to reduce immigration into this country, to reduce net migration,
	and also to improve the removal of illegal immigrants so that those who come here with no right to be here are removed from this country.

Ann McKechin: The House rightly takes seriously the issue of child trafficking. Can the Home Secretary advise me what evaluation was carried out on the increased risk of child trafficking as a result of the pilot and the increased risk of child trafficking that has occurred as a result of this scandal?

Theresa May: The evaluation of the pilot’s impact was intended to demonstrate that. In relation to the possibility of increased child trafficking, I come back to a point that I made earlier. It was clear to officers that it was at their discretion to check children who were coming in, either in family groups or in school groups, and any suspicions that they had in relation to that they could follow up by undertaking those checks.

Douglas Carswell: We know that the radical Islamist Sheikh Raed Salah walked past UK border controls this summer, despite being on a Home Office banned entry list. Was this connected to the news that we hear today, or was it simply a case of someone not checking his passport?

Theresa May: No, it was not connected to the news that I have outlined to the House today. I will be making information available on the issue involving Raed Salah to the Home Affairs Committee.

Heidi Alexander: I would like to return to the issue of who knew what when about the pilot. Did the Prime Minister sanction the pilot going ahead?

Theresa May: The decision was taken by me as Home Secretary, together with the immigration Minister.

Kris Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that under the previous Government the public lost confidence in Labour’s ability to manage immigration and border controls, and that that drove a significant number of people into the hands of the far right? Does she agree that we should not let the people down in such a way?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend. Sadly, the immigration policy of the previous Government led to significant concerns among members of the public. This is an issue that matters to members of the public. It is this coalition Government who are taking action that I believe members of the public want us to take to reduce net migration into this country, to get rid of the abuse of student visas, and to deal with some of the other issues that have led to the significant numbers of people coming into this country over the past 13 years under a Labour Government.

Stephen Pound: The right hon. Lady knows more than almost anyone how uniquely serious the security situation is in Northern Ireland. Can she please confirm that Belfast International was not included in the wave-through amnesty?

Theresa May: As I have indicated, my understanding is that all ports were included, but I will check that point and write to the hon. Gentleman, given his specific interest in it.

Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she will not quadruple the number of work permits for non-EU residents, that she will not preside over the growth of hundreds of phoney colleges that bring in phoney students, and that she will not plan a large-scale amnesty?

Theresa May: I am happy to confirm all those points. Indeed, far from doing any of those things, this Government are getting rid of the abuse of student visas by ensuring that colleges that have been bringing people in to work rather than study can no longer do so. It is this Government who have brought in an annual limit on non-EU economic migrants.

John Spellar: Given the concerns about the UK Border Agency, can we be clear about why the Home Secretary did not arrange to monitor this sensitive pilot or, given her wide range of responsibilities, why the immigration Minister did not do so? Can we also be clear what he signed up to and what he was told? Let us not wait until January for those answers. Will the Home Secretary issue a statement to that effect this week?

Theresa May: I have just made a statement in which I set out the timeline for when decisions were made. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have heard it.

Stephen Mosley: We heard suggestions earlier that documents were being shredded and e-mails were being deleted. What powers will the three inquiries have to ensure that documents are available to them and witnesses can be called to give evidence?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that the internal inquiry has been ongoing since the first information on the matter was available on Thursday and is continuing. I expect it to be a relatively quick inquiry. The inquiry by the chief inspector is starting today, and I saw him and one of his assistant chief inspectors this morning. They have already started the necessary work for conducting the field work at various ports around the country and will have the full powers available to the chief inspector in normal circumstances.

Nia Griffith: We have been rather disappointed by the Home Secretary’s answers on Manchester and Belfast airports and the number of people coming into the country. Will she make available to us as soon as possible all the details about the ports and airports involved, the times they were involved and the number of people who came in, rather than waiting until January for an inquiry? She should make it her business to find these things out.

Theresa May: I have already indicated that I will make available information about which ports were included.

Mike Hancock: I hope that the Home Secretary will not mind me saying so, but she sounds today like she is more on autopilot than anything else. Does she recollect being given a report about the pilot at the end of September? If she did not see it, which of her Ministers did?

Theresa May: As I indicated in my statement, it was decided in the middle of September to extend the pilot until this week. If that is the report the hon. Gentleman is talking about, we of course looked at it and considered whether we should extend the pilot.

Paul Blomfield: If the Home Secretary agrees that every aspect of this issue should be investigated, will she confirm that the inquiries will consider the resources that are made available to UKBA?

Theresa May: The terms of reference for the inquiry by the chief inspector will be placed in the Library, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself exactly what it covers.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Home Secretary congratulate the front-line UKBA officers who do a brilliant job around the country, including in Dover, and is she aware of Phil Woolas’s comments that his efforts to tighten our borders were opposed by Treasury and Foreign Office Ministers?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will indeed pay tribute to the work that is done by UK Border Agency officers at our ports, including those who are at Dover. As I made clear in an earlier answer, they do very good work on a daily basis to stop people coming into this country illegally and to seize goods that should not be coming into this country. As I say, those who operate at Dover should be commended for the work that they do on a daily basis.

Helen Jones: If the pilot was to be evaluated, someone must have been collecting information on how it was working. Can the Home Secretary tell us where that information was held, and can she now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about whether any Minister or ministerial private office knew what was going on?

Theresa May: Yes, we were looking at the operation of the pilot, as a full evaluation, at the end of the pilot taking place. Opposition Members have asked on several occasions whether during the course of the pilot it became clear to Ministers that it was being operated not just as requested and authorised, but in another way, and the answer to that is no.

Mark Reckless: Brodie Clark was governor of Whitemoor prison when five IRA men escaped, yet he was promoted to be the Prison Service head of security and then to head the UK border force. The Home Secretary explains that things will improve under the NCA, but does she agree that confidence in the agency would be bolstered if its head were subject to a parliamentary confirmation hearing?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I suspect that it may choose to return to that issue. As he will know as a member of the Committee, in due course the head of the National Crime Agency will be available to appear before the Committee and to talk about his proposals for the agency, which will include the border police command.

Glenda Jackson: Was there a specific incident that caused Mr Vine to raise his concerns only last week with Mr Whiteman, or did he have concerns during the previous four months? Did he raise them with anyone? Did such individuals raise those issues with the Home Secretary or anyone in her office?

Theresa May: The chief inspector had carried out an inspection of a Heathrow terminal, and during that inspection he developed a concern about the consistency of the controls being operated. It was that issue that he raised, and it was following discussions about that issue that what had happened has come out.

Adrian Bailey: Earlier this year I hosted a delegation of Chinese business men and investors, who very politely told me that they felt they had undergone excessive security screening and delays at Heathrow airport. When the Home Secretary introduced this shambolic pilot, did she not consider the message that it might send to legitimate and well-meaning trading partners from other parts of the world, who have undergone a far more rigorous examination?

Theresa May: I am not quite certain where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on that particular point, because he seems to complain on the one hand about a pilot with some limited relaxation of controls, and on the other hand about excessive controls.

Alison Seabeck: This summer, returning from holiday at the end of August along with thousands of others, we arrived at Heathrow, where we were actively discouraged from using the modern technology that the Home Secretary has talked about so frequently in her answers. Will her pilot study indicate exactly what percentage of passengers arriving used the new machines, what percentage went through officials and what percentage of people caught trying to enter illegally went through either the machines or officials?

Theresa May: E-gate usage is known—those figures are available—and one of the matters that I have taken up with the UK Border Agency is the extent to which it should encourage people who are able to use e-gates to do so. The hon. Lady’s experience suggests that otherwise has occurred.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Home Secretary says that she discussed the pilot with the Immigration Minister and the Minister responsible for security, but did she consult ministerial colleagues and security officials at the Department for Transport? If so, what was their advice?

Theresa May: The matter related to the operation of border security controls, which is a matter for the Home Office.

Graham Stringer: I am appalled that the Home Secretary set up a pilot at Manchester airport and did not know she had done so. That is extraordinary. Will she now answer without any ambiguity the question that has been asked four or five times: did information come from those pilot schemes into her or any other Minister’s office in the Home Office—yes or no?

Theresa May: As I have made clear, an evaluation of the pilot was going to take place at the end of the study, so that we could look at how it was operating and whether it was doing what it was expected to do. As I said in my statement, a decision was taken in the middle of September to extend the pilot until November in order to ensure that there was a fuller period of time to make the evaluation.

Nicholas Dakin: How often did the Home Secretary get reports and updates on the progress of the pilot, and how often did she update the Prime Minister on it?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Prime Minister’s involvement, which has been referred to by another hon. Member, and I answered that question: it was a matter for the Home Office and decisions were taken by the Home Office.

M5 Motorway Accident

Justine Greening: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the serious collision that took place on the M5 motorway in Somerset on the evening of Friday 4 November.
	As the House will be aware, at approximately 20 minutes past 8 on Friday evening, a road traffic collision occurred on the M5 northbound in Somerset involving multiple vehicles. Some of those vehicles subsequently caught fire. The incident occurred between junction 25, Taunton, and junction 24, Bridgwater north, approximately a third of a mile north of junction 25. The emergency services and the Highways Agency responded to the incident immediately, and therefore a large number of emergency service vehicles and resources were able to attend the scene very quickly.
	At approximately 9 pm, based on the numbers of casualties and vehicles involved, Avon and Somerset police declared a major incident. Due to the nature of the incident scene, it took some time to confirm exactly how many people and vehicles were involved in the collision. Avon and Somerset police have now confirmed that 37 vehicles were involved in the collision. Tragically, seven people lost their lives. A further 51 people were injured and were treated at Musgrove Park hospital, Yeovil district hospital or at the scene.
	I would like again to offer my condolences—and I am sure those of the House—to those who have lost friends or family in that horrific crash, as well as to offer our thoughts to those who have been injured. The families of those who lost their lives are being supported by specially trained family liaison officers from Avon and Somerset police, who will continue to work with them as long as they are needed.
	Police investigations on the motorway were completed at 10 minutes past 4 on Sunday 6 November, and the scene was then handed over to the Highways Agency and its contractors to begin repairs to the carriageway.
	The collision incident caused a significant amount of damage to the highway: a stretch of 40 metres of road was damaged by fuel spillage from vehicles and a stretch of 60 metres was damaged by intense fire. Two lanes of the southbound carriageway reopened yesterday at 20 past 5 and, following extensive resurfacing works, all lanes on the northbound carriageway reopened shortly before 9 pm. The final remaining lane closure on the southbound carriageway was removed at 20 past 9 last night, and the road is now running in both directions.
	The Minister responsible for roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), visited the scene of the incident on Saturday, and I was there yesterday. I was tremendously impressed by the determination and professionalism of staff from the emergency services—police, fire crews and ambulance staff—local hospitals and the Highways Agency. They worked with real dedication in the most difficult of circumstances. Our efforts to deal with the scene also involved the Environment Agency. The way in which all those agencies were able to work together highly effectively was critical in ensuring that those involved in the accident were helped and
	treated speedily. I pay tribute to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham who, as gold commander, led those efforts.
	It was a harrowing and painstaking task for all concerned to deal with the incident, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank massively all those involved for their efforts and bravery, including individual members of the public who were passing or near the incident, some of whom tried to help those trapped in vehicles. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the local community, people and businesses in and around Taunton. From local people and hotels offering to accommodate relatives of those injured and members of the public offering support, to local off-duty hospital staff turning up at their hospitals to help to provide care, it was humbling and inspiring to see how selflessly so many people were willing to offer their support to others who needed it.
	It would be a mistake at this very early stage to speculate about the causes of the collision. Investigations into the cause of the crash are still at a very early stage. To put that in context, the recovery phase finished only yesterday, and it is only today that the investigation phase becomes the key focus. While Avon and Somerset police have indicated that the presence of smoke on the carriageway is a significant line of inquiry, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham has been clear that, in his words to me earlier today, it is “far too early” to jump to conclusions on the causal factors of the incident. Our first priority now must be to ensure that the police are able to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the crash.
	As I said, earlier today I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, whose Avon and Somerset force is leading the ongoing investigation. He told me that, given the large number of vehicles involved, and the need carefully to look at the vehicles recovered and of course to talk to the many witnesses, it may be some weeks until the investigation can conclude on any cause or causes of the incident. The police continue to appeal for witnesses, and I encourage anyone with any information to contact the police directly on 101 or by calling Crimestoppers on 0800 500 111.
	I would like to emphasise to the House the extremely high priority that I attach to road safety. The UK has a proud tradition as a world leader on road safety, and that is a tradition that I am determined to continue. Although the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, the horrific crash on Friday has reminded us of the terrible personal consequences of collisions for motorists and local communities. Earlier this year, the Government published a road safety framework that commits us to a range of activities which will enable us to do even better in future. We will of course take full account of any lessons from this terrible collision in developing our future policies and supporting the future safe travel of people.
	The safety of our roads also requires effective partnership working across a wide range of organisations—national and local government, police and emergency services, and many others. We need to work together effectively if we are going to do the best job we can of ensuring that people stay safe on our roads. Over the coming weeks, and going beyond any lessons that may be learned from
	this particular incident, I will be considering carefully our forward plans on road safety to ensure that we have the right measures in place to deliver real and urgent progress on tackling the continuing blight of death and injury on our roads. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for early sight of it. I am sure that we would both have preferred the circumstances of her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport to be different, but may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment? I wish her well in her new role, and I am sure that her decision to visit the scene of this horrific incident over the weekend will have been appreciated, as will the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), particularly by those still working to deal with the aftermath. May I associate Labour Members with the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed for those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered injuries in this tragedy?
	I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the emergency services in Somerset. Tales of extraordinary bravery have emerged from what must have been a terrifying situation, and yet again we have been reminded of the professionalism and dedication of our emergency services. I also add our thanks to the staff of Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton and Yeovil district hospital. They provided an exceptional response after the incident and are continuing to provide the first-class care that we have come to expect and rely on from our national health service.
	This is one of the worst road accidents we have suffered for many years, and it is right that the police must now be able to carry out the very thorough investigation they have begun into the cause of this tragedy. The truth is that we do not know today whether there were steps that could have been taken to prevent the incident. We must await the conclusions of the investigation and avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.
	While families are struggling to come to terms with their devastating loss and victims lie injured, I do not believe it is the right time to pass judgment on specific policies. The Secretary of State said that lessons will be learned for future policy development. Will she confirm that the conclusions of the investigation into this incident will be fully considered before steps are taken to advance any of her Department’s proposals that she has inherited that may have a bearing on road safety?
	The Secretary of State referred to the dramatic fall in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads over previous years. However, she will have noticed the increase in deaths over the last year, which was reported just last week. That is something of which she and this House need to take particular note. She should know that she will have the full support of the Opposition if she brings a renewed focus to the challenge of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has yet discussed this incident with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? Have they confirmed whether they intend to review the licensing regime for
	public events, firework displays and bonfires? Following the fire under the M1 in April, the then Secretary of State for Transport promised a review of the wider lessons that should be learned about the activities that we allow to take place under motorways. Will the right hon. Lady update the House on that work and on any conclusions that have been reached? Will she consider widening that work to consider activities alongside, as well as underneath, our motorways?
	Finally, I would be grateful for an assurance that the Secretary of State will make a further statement to the House following the conclusion of the investigation. It is important that there is an opportunity to discuss these issues more fully than feels appropriate today. I thank her for ensuring that the House has been updated at the earliest possible opportunity following this tragedy.

Justine Greening: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words welcoming me to my new role. As she says, it is a shame that these are the circumstances under which I arrive at the Dispatch Box.
	In response to the points that the hon. Lady made, of course we will consider the lessons that can be learned from this incident, if there are any. As she pointed out, the most important thing is to ensure that the police can get on with their investigation as it unfolds. It is worth reiterating her point that, for the families of people who have been injured and particularly for the families who have lost relatives, it is important that we do not speculate unnecessarily about what might have caused the accident.
	On road safety, the hon. Lady pointed out last quarter’s figures, which showed a rise in fatalities. It is also fair to point out that in the 12 months to the end of June, we continued to see an overall reduction in fatalities and injuries on our roads, so the trend is moving in the right direction. The challenge for this House is to ensure that that does not level off and that we take steps to ensure that the figures come down further, as far as possible.
	The hon. Lady’s question about licensing arrangements slightly prejudges where the police investigation may end up. She has made the point that there is a question over whether this event falls under the Licensing Act 2003 as a regulated event. That is clearly something that the police and the local authority will consider.
	If the police investigation that is under way presents any conclusions that I think it is important for this House to consider, I will of course come back and make a statement. It is possible that the police will conclude that they cannot say absolutely what caused the collision. However, if there are meaningful lessons and conclusions that it is worth this House discussing, I will ensure that we have a follow-up statement.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If I may, I will pay tribute to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is in his place, because it is the nightmare of every MP to face such a tragedy. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State made it clear that this matter will be thought through logically. One worry is that, as the M5 is the most important arterial route in our county, whatever happens to the M5 affects the whole county. When decisions are made, I ask the Secretary of State please to consult the MPs with constituencies along the M5, so
	that we have some input into any recommendations that are put forward by the police and the Highways Agency for the future of the road.

Justine Greening: I very much hope that we will be able to have an ongoing dialogue with local MPs about the effectiveness of any measures that end up being proposed. Frankly, I would expect that on any key proposals that affect any Member’s local public transport.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Lady says that the road death figures are still heading in the right direction, but my reading of the latest figures was that, even before this terrible crash, we were looking at the first annual increase in road deaths that this country has seen for 20 years. As she will know, that is deeply worrying to road safety campaigners and others. Will she at the very least have another look at her predecessor’s plan to encourage faster speeds on the motorways by increasing the speed limit?

Justine Greening: To go back over the figures on road safety, of course it is concerning that the most recent quarter’s figures that have been released showed such a rise, but we should still not lose sight of the fact that the trend is in the right direction. We should also be conscious of the fact that levels of road safety can, of course, be affected by the weather, so it is not quite as straightforward as simply saying from looking at those figures that there is an underlying reduction in road safety compared with previous quarters.
	One key point to recognise in relation to those numbers and the hon. Gentleman’s point about speed is that people can drive unsafely at any speed and in any weather conditions. It is important that we do not jump to a solution when the police still have to examine the causes of the accident, and that we ensure that we have a measured discussion about action that could be taken in future months to improve road safety. We as a House need to have that discussion in a responsible and balanced way.

David Laws: I join the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), as well as the other local MPs, in congratulating the emergency services on their fantastic response to Friday’s tragedy. From a Yeovil perspective, I particularly pay tribute to the many people from my constituency, including at Yeovil hospital, who did fantastic work on Friday night and Saturday morning.
	Although the Secretary of State is absolutely right not to leap to conclusions when we do not know the full facts, there are undoubtedly many positive lessons to be learned from the response of the emergency services on Friday and Saturday. I hope that she will undertake to ensure that that best practice is spread to all emergency forces across the United Kingdom.

Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. During both my trip to the scene and local hospitals and that of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the point was constantly made to us
	about the extremely effective way in which a number of different agencies had worked together. For example, at the hospital that I visited in Taunton, staff talked to me about how they had in place an emergency process for dealing with such an incident, and it worked extremely well when that incident finally happened. There are best practice lessons to be taken from that, and we will certainly work to ensure that they are disseminated to other agencies across the rest of the country. I hope that the Highways Agency will play a key role in that.

Meg Munn: I welcome the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to road safety, because every single death is a tragedy. May I ask her to look again at the framework that her Department has developed? I believe that there has unfortunately been a tendency to see an increase in safety measures, such as better eyesight testing, as a burden rather than as something that will save lives.

Justine Greening: In all this we must strike the right balance, but I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I take incredibly seriously the issue of safety not just on the roads but across the transport system. I will take a very careful look at it to ensure that we always strike that balance. The strategic framework for road safety that we published in May contained a number of steps in the right direction. I would of course like to consider what more we can do, but we have, for example, increased fixed penalty notice fines for many motoring offences. The fixed penalty notice fine for speeding had not risen since 2000. The Government are taking a number of steps to ensure that we have a very proactive approach to road safety.

Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will know that the M5 is the major spine road into Devon and Cornwall, and is very busy in both directions. This appalling tragedy has been a real shock to all of us on the peninsula. May I therefore commend her for her calm and measured way of responding to the crisis, and join her in thanking the emergency services? In particular, I thank the Highways Agency for getting the road back together again so quickly.

Justine Greening: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. It is actually a stretch of road that I know very well. In fact, I had driven along it myself only two weekends before. He is absolutely right that we should pay tribute to the Highways Agency, which did an outstanding job in being ready to work with the police and then, critically, in taking the necessary steps once the police had released the scene. The agency not only ensured that the highway was safe for motorists to get back on the southbound carriageway as quickly as possible, but took steps to re-lay the northbound carriageway, which took just five to six hours. That meant that we were able to get that carriageway opened on Sunday night rather than Monday morning.
	I should also say that the Highways Agency did an excellent job on the Friday evening of ensuring that the motorists who were not directly involved in the accident but were held up as a result of it were safely and gradually escorted away from the scene.

Robert Flello: May I associate myself with the words of condolence to all the families affected and the words of praise for all those involved in what must have been horrific? I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will know—hopefully he has whispered it in the ear of the Secretary of State—about the very positive impact that the Heavy Rescue Partnership has had, saving lives in association with Staffordshire fire and rescue. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the investigation will consider whether the availability of such an approach might have made the difference on the night of that terrible incident?

Justine Greening: We will consider all such issues going forward, so the answer is yes.

Tessa Munt: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) in his comments about the emergency services, and I wish particularly to point out the contribution made by the family liaison officers who work in such circumstances.
	I was present at the time on the southbound carriageway, and I saw what had happened as I was drawing off the road at the Taunton junction. I do not think I have ever seen anything like what I saw on Friday evening. It was an absolute inferno, and it was impossible for me to leave the car on the southbound carriageway to do anything.
	Will the Secretary of State commend the bravery of two of my constituents, both of whom are in their 20s—a young man called Sam Jones and another gentleman by the name of Tom Hamill? Both played their part in rescuing people from the vehicles, particularly Tom, who I understand saved the life of a very small baby. I thank them for doing that.

Justine Greening: I pay tribute again to members of the public who, in many cases, selflessly put themselves in the way of harm to help and save others. We have all read of the many acts of heroism that people instinctively performed to help those whom they saw in need. In a world in which there is a lot of discussion about a big society, the fact that people’s instinct when they saw such a tragedy unfolding was to run towards it and try to help says an awful lot about the spirit of local communities up and down our country, particularly in Taunton.

Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State join in the heartfelt tributes paid to my constituents and neighbours Tony and Pamela Adams, who died in the accident? We can all empathise with them—they were on a journey that they had made many times before, but within seconds a normal situation descended into hell on earth. They were not just another statistic; they were two lovely people who had been sweethearts for 50 years. They were stalwarts of the Allt-yr-yn community and their local church, St Mark’s. In fact, Tony had organised the order of service for yesterday. No one is expecting any instant solutions from the Government, but may we take it that we as parliamentarians will understand the immeasurable loss to the family and
	friends, and say that we will do all we can to ensure by the decisions that we take that an accident of this kind is less likely in future?

Justine Greening: Yes. I once again send my condolences to that family. There is very little that anybody can say to their relatives at the moment that will provide any real comfort under the circumstances of this tragedy. As the hon. Gentleman points out, it happened instantaneously, which is a particular challenge for families who lose people in such circumstances. I can assure him that, as I have said to the House already, I take road safety and safety across our transport system incredibly seriously, and I will ensure that if there are any lessons to be learned, they will be acted upon, although we must wait for the outcome of the police investigation.

Oliver Colvile: I echo the condolences offered by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the families who have been badly affected. Connectivity with the peninsula not only by railway but by road is a very big issue. The M5 is the only arterial dual carriageway that goes the whole way down. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet me and people from the south-west to discuss how we can improve that connectivity, and to find ways to ensure that when the motorway is closed, as it had to be, we can get to and from places much more easily?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for roads and I will be quite happy to have that meeting. The broader point that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) makes on resilience is critical. We saw the challenges for the road network in that area last year. Although my visit yesterday was to show support for the emergency services and the Highways Agency and the wonderful work they had done, I took the opportunity to raise initially some questions on winter resilience for that area, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Barry Sheerman: As chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Road Safety, the transport safety charity, I welcome the Secretary of State to her new job. We look forward to working with her on safety issues on a cross-party basis.
	This tragic accident reminds us all that speed does kill, and hon. Members must think very carefully about it. I hope that when we analyse—[ Interruption. ] Yes, we must carefully analyse this accident. I hope that one specific thing that the Secretary of State’s experts look at is the fire. It is very unusual in road accidents to have fires of that intensity. Many of us in road safety campaigning organisations have been worried for some time about the vulnerability of the fuel tanks of commercial vehicles. Will she ensure that she looks at that, and will she consider the restoration of the road safety partnerships?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is right that the fire was a significant factor in the number of fatalities and it is fair to say that it was a particularly unusual occurrence. He asks about fuel tanks on heavy goods vehicles. As he will be aware, there are a number of regulations on ensuring that HGVs are safe, and he will be interested to know that EU harmonisation rules mean that over the next three years those standards will
	become even tougher. I am very happy to talk with the hon. Gentleman, who has an interest in this area, to see how we can maintain a balanced and informed debate on how to improve road safety.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I add my name to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in commenting on our sympathy for the bereaved and our praise of the security and emergency services in Somerset, particularly the Avon and Somerset constabulary? May I also thank the Secretary of State for being calm in her approach and for being willing to look at the evidence, particularly in relation to the 80 mph speed limit? I do not think that now is the time to be dwelling on those issues, but a full and thorough review must be the right way forward.

Justine Greening: I agree with my hon. Friend. Critically, we must bear in mind that safe driving on motorways is not simply about the maximum speed limit; it is also about smart driving—not driving too close to people in front and braking in a way that is not too quick and that surprises motorists behind. There are an awful lot of different aspects of safe driving on motorways. In fact, we are already considering whether we can ensure that learner drivers have some experience of driving on motorways as part of their training. That proposal has been put to us. We can do a number of things to improve the situation. Clearly, it is important for individual drivers at all times to bear in mind that although there is a speed limit, they must drive according to the conditions of the road and the weather.

Alison Seabeck: May I thank both Front Benchers for voicing so clearly the sentiments felt on both sides of the House for all those involved? Crash barriers save lives, and they are particularly well designed in the UK. We can see from the pictures that the crash barriers prevented vehicles from going on to the southbound carriageway. However, a degree of compression was caused by having crash barriers on both the hard shoulder and the central reservation, where we expect them to be. Such compression exacerbates the potential for fire to spread, as people are funnelled into a particular spot. As part of the Secretary of State’s investigation, will she look at whether having crash barriers on both sides of the road had any impact on the spread of fire among vehicles?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right to point out that the Highways Agency must manage risks. The crash barriers are on the side of that particular stretch of motorway because there is a steep bank. She raises the issue of the compression of vehicles, but alternatively, had the barrier not been there, the risk is that vehicles would have gone down the bank. Nevertheless, the police were quite careful to ensure that they looked around the banks to see whether there were any injured people or fatalities who were not on the motorway itself. The Highways Agency takes a risk-based approach to such things, which is what it had done on that particular stretch of motorway.

Neil Parish: I agree with the whole House on our heartfelt sympathy for those who lost loved ones in this absolutely terrible crash. I congratulate the emergency services, which
	were there within four minutes, which is an excellent response. As other hon. Members have said, the M5 is the great arterial road into the south-west. However, we need to look not only at the M5, but at the A30 and A303, because they are also major roads into the west country.

Justine Greening: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is important that we look across the road network to ensure that roads are maintained safely. As I have said, it is important that we wait for the police to go through their investigation into this particular incident, which could take some weeks, before we can draw conclusions on any actions that need to be taken.

Nia Griffith: This tragic accident is a salutary reminder to every single one of us just how easy it is to go from cruising along a motorway to ending up in a pile-up. Although I would not make any comment on the initial causes—it is not appropriate for any of us to do so—and although I hear what the Secretary of State says on the complexity of the speed issue, will she remember that faster speeds mean longer stopping distances and greater impacts on collision, and will she abandon plans to raise the speed limit on the motorways?

Justine Greening: As I have said, it is far too early to jump to conclusions about the possible cause or causes of the accident, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that I take road safety incredibly seriously, so I shall, of course, always ensure that I am happy that the measures that we introduce are appropriate.

Tobias Ellwood: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services and in offering my condolences to those affected by this terrible tragedy. Stopping distances are critical. A growing trend on all motorways is the fact that cars drive in such close proximity one behind the other. May I invite her to consider the increased use of chevrons painted on the road, which encourage individuals to think more carefully about their distance from the car in front, allowing that critical stopping distance and therefore saving lives?

Justine Greening: We are in the middle of several pilots considering whether chevrons can help drivers work out how much space they need. One of the challenges is that heavy goods vehicles need much longer stopping distances than cars, which is something to bear in mind as well, because there is no point in cars stopping in time after an accident if the HGVs behind have not left themselves enough stopping distance.

David Hamilton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on how she has approached this subject, and echo the comments that have been made today. There will be a report, and I thank her for saying that she will return to the Chamber, but will she also indicate whether she will include Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, so that best practice can be rolled out throughout the UK?

Justine Greening: I shall ensure that we share best practice more broadly. Obviously, I know that the devolved authorities take their own decisions in this area, but I think that they will be happy to learn any lessons that can be learnt.

Andrew Murrison: This major incident involved emergency services from across the region. I pay tribute to them. What support will be available to them and to members of the public, including one or two of my constituents, involved in this terrible tragedy?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It was one that I particularly raised with the local hospitals involved, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham and the Highways Agency, and I can provide reassurance that the necessary support will be in place. Of course the emergency services are used to dealing with very serious and harrowing accidents, but they would recognise that this was a particularly large and challenging one. Although many people in the emergency services have attended many such accidents in the past, there are some accidents that require support to be in place, and this was one of them.

Adam Afriyie: Emma Barton lies in hospital in a coma. She lost her mother a few months ago, and she lost her father and sister in this accident. It is easy in these debates to think of such accidents merely as statistics, so I want to put on the record my condolences to any family she has left, and to her friends and other relatives. I commend the tone in which the Secretary of State made her statement today. Will she join me in ensuring that any additional services that may be required for people involved will be provided?

Justine Greening: I can absolutely confirm that. I understand that Emma Barton’s boyfriend is with her in the hospital. My hon. Friend’s points underline how for some people this is an unfolding drama: there are some in hospital who, because of their condition, are unaware that they have lost their nearest and dearest. That is another reason why it is right to approach any debate on road safety in an incredibly sensitive manner until the police have had time to conduct their investigation.

Bob Russell: Successive Governments over the past 40 years can be commended on how they have approached road safety. The number of road deaths last year was the lowest since records began 85 years ago, and by the time the previous Labour Government left office, the annual death toll on our roads had been virtually halved. The Secretary of State said that she attached an extremely high priority to road safety, and I welcome that, but there is no need to speculate because it is clear from all the evidence that if an 80 mph speed limit is introduced on our motorways, if moving traffic is allowed on to hard shoulders, and if there is a reduction in the frequency of MOT vehicle roadworthiness tests, the number of deaths, injuries and crashes will rise. Given the increase in the number of serious injuries and deaths in recent months, does she agree that it would be criminal to pursue those three objectives?

Justine Greening: There is not much that I would like to add at this point. We need to let the police get on with their investigation, rather than prejudging what they might say were the causes of the collision. The other point is that the pilot on hard shoulder running, on the M42, proved it to be safer.

Peter Bottomley: The public tragedy of these seven deaths, so far, needs to be considered alongside the 35 private tragedies—the average number of deaths per week—in comparison with the 107 deaths each week 25 years ago. I commend my right hon. Friend for saying that we want to look for the causal factors and then consider what further measures we can take. However, will she get the Government to consider whether the question of the change from summertime to wintertime, which brings with it an average death cost in this country of 70 lives a year—two weeks’ worth of deaths—is worth returning to in time? I do not want an answer, or a promise to do it, straight away, but that is one of the decisions that the House could take, and it would save a significant number of lives.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend, as a former Minister with responsibility for roads, always has an important point to make. I am aware of the arguments about daylight saving time—there are arguments on both sides—but obviously we have to be conscious of how any change would affect not just the south of our country but the north. I have no doubt that we will continue to have that debate over the coming months.

Iain Stewart: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about considering road safety measures more generally and not just speed limits, but may I urge her, as part of her review, to consider the system in France, where they have two levels of mandatory speed limit on motorways—an 80 mph limit for fair-weather driving and a considerably lower limit for adverse conditions?

Justine Greening: I have considered that. In fact, I was in discussion with the AA over the weekend to hear its views on HGVs and the speed limit. It has supported variable limits. However, it made another point too. Organisations such as the AA think that drivers can take decisions for themselves about the right speed to drive at, and that is something that we should be trying to build upon. It is important that drivers take responsibility for driving in a way appropriate for the road conditions.

Rob Wilson: In the context of getting to the truth of what happened in this dreadful accident, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether CCTV or traffic cameras were in operation along that stretch of the M5? If so, are they being used as part of the inquiry?

Justine Greening: When I went to the Highways Agency yesterday I saw some of the monitors on which the footage from those CCTV cameras can be viewed. People are viewing that footage, but the main challenge is that it was dark, which means that the information in the images is less than was hoped for. None the less, that footage will definitely be looked at to see whether it can provide any information that can feed into the inquiry.

Karen Bradley: I associate myself with the words of sympathy being expressed across the House. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the facts remain uncertain and emotions remain so raw, it is inappropriate for lobbyists and lobby groups to use this terrible tragedy to further their own campaigns?

Justine Greening: We all need to be conscious of our responsibility to approach road safety in a balanced, informed and sensitive way, given the tragic collision on the M5 on Friday, and I hope that the House will show leadership in doing just that.

Mark Pawsey: I was travelling southbound on the M5 in Somerset on Friday evening and was diverted from the motorway, which meant that thankfully, unlike the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), I did not have to see the incident that led to loss of life. However, I did see a multiple collision in queuing traffic, which added to the demands on the emergency services that night. As part of a review, will the Secretary of State consider what steps could be taken to improve warnings and information for other road users, so that they can be better prepared for what is up ahead?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of information. It is not just when there are accidents that it is good to give motorists additional information so that they can make their own decisions about how to avoid a congested area. I would also like to look into how we can get better information to motorists on a daily basis, because it can help whatever the driving circumstances.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place, endorse her remarks, echo her condolences to the families, and commend her statement. It is absolutely right to take a calm and measured approach towards making road safety the key priority. Given some of the increases in braking technology, for instance, I am sure that she will have the support of the whole House if she does not rush to early conclusions on the remarks about speed at this stage.

Justine Greening: We have always said that any decision we took would follow a consultation, and that is right. These are important areas to get right, and they require a balanced approach. That means understanding all the downsides and upsides before any final decision is taken. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will go through the right process before we take any decisions.

Julian Huppert: I would like to add my condolences to those affected by this awful tragedy, which is a serious reminder of the continuing toll on our roads. Just last year, in 2010, there were 1,850 deaths and more than 200,000 injuries, or some 600 every day. Mechanical failure contributed to some of those casualties. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the success of the MOT test, which helps to improve safety standards?

Justine Greening: The MOT test has been in place for many years, and of course it plays a role in ensuring that cars are roadworthy. However, we should also recognise its limitations, and the fact that motorists will
	always need to take the necessary steps to ensure that their vehicles are roadworthy in between tests. If there are indications to suggest that a vehicle is not roadworthy, it is the motorist who has the responsibility to ensure that it is checked by a local garage.

Bob Stewart: Twenty-nine years ago I had the sad responsibility of identifying several friends who had been killed in circumstances similar to those on the M5 last Friday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not forget those who had the sad responsibility, if not duty, of identifying their friends or family members, or the calm courage that they needed to go through that awful process?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right, and that is one of the reasons why we have to approach this in a measured way. In fact, the formal identification process is still under way for many of those families. Only once we have got through that, and the pathology, can the coroner for the south-west start his inquest, which we would hope can take place later this week. Many of us cannot even begin to understand what it would be like to go through such a traumatic experience, and we always have to bear that in mind.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend is fortunate to have as the Minister with responsibility for roads the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who, as a former professional firefighter, brings his personal knowledge and experience to this issue. We have heard from several Members today that one of the sad features of this tragedy was the extent of the flames and the inferno that resulted. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiry asks not just how we can prevent such crashes from happening, but how we can prevent vehicles from bursting into flames?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right on two counts. First, we have a Minister with responsibility for roads who is perhaps uniquely placed to bring his insights to bear in dealing with such incidents. His visit to the site the day after the accident was vital in giving us the assurance that the necessary steps were being
	taken. In relation to the fire, there is no doubt that the police will look into not just the precise circumstances that led to the collision, but why things unfolded as they did. As I have said, HGV fuel tank standards will be toughened and get progressively better over the next three years. That is obviously good news, and appropriate, and if there are further lessons to be learnt, they will be.

Chris Kelly: May I join in the expressions of condolence? What is the scope for increasing the number of miles of lit motorway in this country?

Justine Greening: Again, there is a danger of jumping to what the solutions could be following the police investigation. Suffice it to say, however, that I am of course open-minded about taking any steps that we think can improve road safety and ensure that we maintain—indeed, improve—our road safety record.

LOCALISM BILL (MONEY) (NO. 2)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Localism Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act.—(Jeremy Wright.)

LOCALISM BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Localism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 17 January 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme)) and 17 May 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm at this day’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.

Localism Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Nigel Evans: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a substantial number of Lords amendments, which will be listed in the Official Report. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
	[Following are the  Lords  amendments in which financial privilege is involved: 3 to 12, 23, 29, 40, 49, 50, 54 to 60, 62, 64, 66 to 69, 72, 74 to 115, 131, 148, 150, 157 to 165, 225, 226, 250 to 254, 257, 260, 294, 295, 302, 312, 334, 335, 337 to 344, 349, 371, 376, 377, 387, 389, 395, 399 to 402.]

Clause 9
	 — 
	General powers of certain fire and rescue authorities

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13, 231 to 233, 242 and 399 to 403.

Greg Clark: For the best of a century, most Bills that have passed through this House have taken power from communities and councils and given more power to central Government, or in some cases to European government. This is an historic Bill, not just for the measures it contains but for what it represents. It is about striking out in a different direction. Power should be held at the lowest possible level. We want this to be the first Parliament for many years that, by the end of its Sessions, will have given power away.
	That is true for many of the Bill’s provisions—the community right to challenge; the community right to bid for assets of public value; the abolition of regional spatial strategies; the introduction of neighbourhood planning—but nowhere is it more significant than in clause 1, which deals with the general power of competence. The general power of competence changes the default position. Currently, local government exists to do the things that central Government require it to do. Clause 1 turns that default position upside down. Local government can do the things that it thinks are right, unless they are positively banned. What is not forbidden is permitted. The question for councils is not, “Can we do this?” but, “How can we make it happen?”
	I am pleased to see across the Chamber veterans of our many hours in Committee, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). The Bill has enjoyed 70 hours of scrutiny in the House of Commons and 105 hours of scrutiny in their lordships’ House. It has also been the subject of advice from many outside groups. As colleagues who served on the Committee will know, I have always taken the view that, if we are going to make use of that parliamentary time and
	engage with a large number of submissions from outside groups, it behoves the Government to listen to the sensible suggestions that have been made, and to the constructive advice we have received, with an open mind.
	There is a form of Bill-handling in which it is seen as the Bill Minister’s responsibility to carry the Bill through its every parliamentary stage as though it were a Ming vase, to repel boarders and to keep people away from it so that emerges intact at the other end. That has never been my view. I think that it is right to listen to constructive suggestions, of which there have been many during the Bill’s progress.
	I want to pay tribute to the scrutiny that all members of the Committee performed. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is not in her place tonight, because she approached her responsibilities with the utmost dedication and forensically scrutinised the Bill. We all know that the Opposition lack the excellent resources provided to the Government by civil servants, so I would like to pay tribute to her leadership on the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. We do, however, have the benefit of the presence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, although the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has been moved to other duties. He is therefore the last man standing, and I am glad that our team is intact. Much rests on his shoulders, and we are grateful for his contribution.
	In the House of Commons Committee, we strengthened the Bill, especially in relation to the duty to co-operate. We had some very productive discussions on that, in which we established agreement with hon. Members across the House. On Report, we said that we would consider the neighbourhood planning aspects of the Bill in the House of Lords, because some of the amendments that were suggested by Members on both sides of the House required greater technical reflection. Many of the amendments that we shall consider today deal with those matters.
	The process has been productive. Looking at the report of the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords, I was struck by some of the comments. Lord Best, speaking on behalf of the Cross Benchers this time last week, said that
	“the key role of this House in scrutinising legislation has been wonderfully illustrated by the progress of the Localism Bill. I have been given a list of 10 major issues that were originally of considerable concern to the Local Government Association, for example, and on which that body, representing local authorities up and down the land, now feels reassured and to a very large degree satisfied with the legislation as it now appears. The same kind of list could have been devised by a number of external agencies, with the same satisfaction rating at the end of that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1106.]
	Lord Tope, my noble Friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches, said that
	“we are now sending something like 100 pages of amendments back to the Commons. What is more notable is that all those amendments have been passed without the need for a vote; in other words, we have truly reached consensus.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1107.]
	The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, Lord McKenzie of Luton, said:
	“It has been a listening team, which has boded well for the outcome of the Bill… The Government have listened to the voices of experience and common sense.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1108.]
	That has been our demeanour throughout the proceedings, and it will continue to be our demeanour as we approach the matters before us today. I see from the amendment paper that suggestions from colleagues on both sides of the House have serious thought behind them, and I will respond to them constructively and positively.
	Having dealt with the general power of competence, let me turn to some of the amendments in the group, starting with those that cover transport. There was extensive discussion in the other place on the general powers, and it was argued that the general power of competence should be extended beyond the local authorities that were in the original drafting of the Bill. Lords amendments 4, 5 and 7 therefore extend broad new powers to the integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives. These points were also raised by Opposition Front Benchers in Committee. The provisions will enable authorities to undertake ancillary and possibly joint activities outside their geographic boundaries, for example. This will improve and strengthen the Bill in the direction that we have set out, and I am pleased to commend those Lords amendments to colleagues today.
	We agree with Lords amendment 6, which proposes to extend the general powers of competence to, for example, combined authorities. We know that Greater Manchester has established very satisfactory arrangements for joint working, and it is reasonable that those powers should be extended to such arrangements. Lords amendments 8 to 13, 242 and 399 to 402 have been termed collectively the “core cities” group of amendments. They represent a significant breakthrough. During the passage of the Bill, it was clear to those on all sides that we had an opportunity to embed mechanisms to allow the future devolution of power from central Government to local government. Working over the summer with the representatives of the Core Cities Group and the leaders of local authorities, from all parties, across the country, we were able with the co-operation of Front Benchers of all parties represented in the House of Lords to agree a set of amendments that will allow for the transfer of public functions and the delegation to local authorities, by agreement and subject to a super-affirmative procedure.
	This is an important new power. It will allow us to enact, without the need for primary legislation, agreed transfers of power between local authorities and central Government. Those transfers of power might not be obvious today. I have encouraged particular cities across the country to consider which powers that are currently held by central Government they could usefully discharge themselves. This mechanism will give us the opportunity to allow them to do so, and I should like to put on record my gratitude to the leaders and officers of the Core Cities Group for their help.
	A few technical amendments in this group respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On Second Reading and in Committee, we had much to say about the so-called Henry VIII powers that were to be made available to the Secretary of State. My view at the time was that we should go through them individually, and that those that were proved unnecessary or superfluous should be removed as the Bill progressed through the House.
	We have delivered on that commitment. A substantial number of those powers have now been narrowed in scope or, in some cases, removed. For example, Lords amendment 231 will ensure that orders made under the
	Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure. That power will allow the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any power that overlaps with the general power of competence, but it will require the affirmative procedure to be employed. Lords amendment 232 will remove an exception that permitted orders to be accepted through the negative resolution procedure. I will not go through all the amendments, but I think that Members will acknowledge, as did their lordships, that we have responded to the concerns that many hon. Members expressed about the nature of the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. Benign though the present Secretary of State is, there was a fear that some future Secretaries of State might not be as localist in their intentions. Those provisions will now be safeguarded in the Bill.
	The final amendment in the group will remove all doubt that fire and rescue authorities should not be able to charge for community fire safety advice or for fire prevention activity. This matter was raised in the other place by Baroness Smith of Basildon, a former fire Minister, and we have been pleased to introduce the provision.
	I am grateful for their lordships’ scrutiny. I am especially grateful to the Front-Bench team that represented the Government so well. It was led by Baroness Hanham and supported by Lord Taylor, Lord Attlee and Lord Shutt. We urge colleagues to agree to the Lords amendments in this group.

Helen Jones: The Minister always sounds terribly reasonable and persuasive, and one could almost fall for his view that the Bill is a Ming vase. In fact, it is really a dodgy, cracked, second-hand urn. He has had to amend it hugely in the other place.
	I do not wish to detain the House too long on this group of amendments, as we have a lot to discuss, but I want to put on record the fact that we are deeply concerned at having only three and a half hours tonight in which to discuss more than 400 amendments. The Minister referred to the scrutiny that the Bill has already had, and we absolutely accept that several statements had to be made today, but we hoped that the Government would extend the time available for these discussions. Dealing with over 400 amendments in three and a half hours really does not improve parliamentary scrutiny. It was heartening when we constantly heard from the Prime Minister before the election how much he wanted to return to Parliament many of its powers and to improve parliamentary scrutiny—but we have never seen it from this Government. We did not see it with the Health and Social Care Bill and we are not seeing it with the Localism Bill.
	The Minister would have us believe that this is an historic Bill that returns power to the lowest level. In fact, it is not. It is a Bill about centralising power and devolving the blame. [Interruption.] I knew I would upset the Minister eventually; it was only going to be a matter of time. We welcome some of the Lords amendments, but we have to make it clear that we still think this Bill is shambolic and has not been thought through. The fact that the Government had to make so many amendments in the other place shows how little they thought about it to start with.
	Let me deal with some of the issues in this group of amendments. We welcome the extension of powers for integrated transport authorities and passenger transport
	executives and for combined authorities, for which we argued in Committee, as the Minister will remember. It is a bit of pity, I think, that the Government resist such provisions in Committee and then wait to bring in the amendments from the unelected House.

Greg Clark: We discussed these matters quite extensively in Committee. I think there was a shared view across the Committee that where the Government agree with some amendments proposed by Members, the convention is that they should reflect on them to ensure that they are legally robust. That is an established process, and throughout proceedings on the whole Bill, as I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) would agree, I have honoured every commitment I made from the Front Bench—for example, that we would consider any suggestions positively. That is why we have come back with these proposals. We have delivered on every commitment we made, so it is a little churlish of the hon. Lady to suggest that it was somehow delayed.

Helen Jones: I remind the Minister that there is such a thing as Report stage in the elected House, and that he is allowed to propose amendments there—he does not have to wait for the Bill to go to the unelected House. He could have accepted amendments at that stage. He says he has to make sure that things are “legally robust”, which Ministers often say, and I must be frank with him and point out that in my experience it is often used as a delaying tactic while Departments sort out what they are prepared to agree to and what they are not.
	We welcome amendment 3, which makes it clear what fire and rescue authorities can charge for and prevents them for charging for community fire safety work. I am glad that the Minister listened to my noble Friend—not simply a turn of phrase, as she is my friend—Baroness Smith in the other place, as she has great experience in these matters.

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady has pointed out that her noble Friend is indeed in the House of Lords. Unlike her, I am prepared to listen to the House of Lords. What the Baroness said would not have been heard in the House of Commons.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but while their lordships add much to our debate, there is something to be said for letting the elected House deal with these amendments properly. He has brought them back from the House of Lords and more than 400 amendments are going through in three and a half hours. That does not strengthen the position of the elected House.
	The Minister also mentioned the core cities provisions. We welcome the powers to authorities proposed in the amendments, especially where they would improve local economic development and wealth creation and increase local accountability. We hope that the powers will be used to ensure better co-ordination on the ground. We note the duty on the Secretary of State to consider a proposal from local authorities for the transfer of public functions.
	We think that there is much potential in those proposals, but they have to be seen in context. As I said, this is a Bill that gives more than 142 new powers to the Secretary
	of State. It is not simply a Bill about devolving powers to local authorities. The Secretary of State retains, albeit subject to certain safeguards, an extraordinary power to repeal, amend, revoke or disapply any duty on local authorities.
	We do not intend to oppose the amendments, but we think they have to be seen in the context of the extraordinary Henry VIII powers that the Secretary of State still retains. I repeat that, however much the Minister tries to persuade us, he is not introducing an historic Bill that devolves lots of powers to local authorities. He is introducing a Bill that gives many more powers to the Secretary of State. Everything we debate this evening will have to be seen in that context.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 3 to 12.
	After Clause 13

Timetables for changing English district councils’ electoral schemes

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 15 to 49 and 95 to 111.
	Lords amendment 112, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 235, 248, 256, 261, 263 to 333, 404 to 413 and 441.

Andrew Stunell: As my right hon. Friend the Minister eloquently set out in respect of the last string of amendments, the Government believe that we need to decentralise power to local communities. I think that is now a shared all-party analysis, that the days of top-down control should be removed and that we should move to bottom-up control.
	For the last 30 or 40 years—my right hon. Friend suggested perhaps for the last 100 years—there has been gathering frustration at the way in which local communities and local councils have had their decision making taken away from them and their power denuded, and, particularly for those in local government, how they have increasingly faced a situation in which everything they did was either compulsory or prohibited with no scope for local discretion or for taking account of local circumstances, local needs, local resources or, indeed, local opinion.
	The communities that local authorities have served have had the role of angry bystanders, whereby things were simply done to them, imposed on them or dumped on them—not done by them, decided by them or, least of all, chosen and delivered by them. This Bill marks a huge cultural change not just for those local communities and local councils, but for those in Westminster, and perhaps even more for those in Whitehall. We need to change that culture: it is a long overdue change, and this Bill makes a start on achieving it.
	I am encouraged by the fact that the criticism of Opposition Members is now that we are not going far or fast enough, when, in fact, over the last 13 years, they made the problem worse, not better. We look forward greatly to their co-operation in this place—as it was so willingly offered in the other place—so that we can improve the Bill, make it even more localist, and deliver for local communities and local councils.

Nick Raynsford: As the Minister will know, the amendments include a requirement for the deletion of clauses 42 to 58, the local referendum provisions. Does he regard that as an enhancement of local decision making, an embarrassing withdrawal from a rather bizarre and ill-thought-out proposal for local decision making, or simply a recognition of a cock-up on the Government’s part?

Andrew Stunell: Given that the right hon. Gentleman spoke and, I believe, voted against the inclusion of that provision in the Bill, I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that the Bill in its present form reflects his point of view more accurately than it did before.
	The amendments take the power and local responsibility of local authorities further than the Bill as originally drafted. Although the original Bill set out to achieve that, we always made clear that there was more to do, and that we were willing to listen when there were sensible arguments for going further. That is what underlies the amendments, all of which—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister—secured support throughout the other place. During the debates both here and in the other place, a number of Members of both Houses made sensible suggestions about additional areas in which we could free up local government. Let me highlight two examples in which the Bill now goes even further than we originally proposed in freeing local authorities to manage their own business as they consider appropriate.
	Good arguments were advanced in the other place in support of the view that the rules on area committees were too prescriptive. In response, the Government tabled Lords amendments 269, 271 and 272, which remove the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations in relation to such committees. When we were discussing the earlier group of amendments, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) maintained the argument—which does not bear close examination—that, in some mysterious way, inserting these proposals in the Bill, and improving them today, constituted an act of centralisation. Nothing could be further from the truth: our amendments relating to area committees demonstrate not just our intentions, but our delivery of increased localism for local authorities.
	Good arguments were also advanced in the other place for the view that the rules on area committees were too tight. We therefore tabled Lords amendments 263, 267 and 270, which enable an executive of a local authority to delegate its functions to an area committee and to arrange for the discharge of those functions by an officer of the authority. That enables councils to establish whatever area committees they wish to establish, and to give them whatever executive functions they consider
	appropriate, without asking the Secretary of State for regulations or permission. Lords amendment 273 also removes the restrictions on the maximum size of area committees.
	The Bill gives more powers to local authorities in respect of local elections. We have responded to representations about unnecessary restrictions on authorities wishing to change their scheme of elections, and the significant time constraints that were built into that scheme. Lords amendment 14 removes the rules stipulating when authorities may change their scheme of elections. It leaves them to make such decisions at a time that is right for them and their local communities without being dictated to by central government, and enables them to decide the date on which they will hold their first whole council elections.
	Members of both Houses expressed the fear that the Government’s proposals would place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. We reflected carefully on those arguments, and discussed them at length with appropriate parties both inside and outside the House of Commons. One example relates to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about the proposed mayoral arrangements. As a result of comments made on Report—by the right hon. Gentleman, among others—and on Second Reading in the House of Lords, we agreed to streamline our proposals for elected mayors. Lords amendment 312 and a number of consequential amendments remove our initial proposals on shadow mayors as precursors to directly elected mayors, while Lords amendments 94 and 296 and a number of consequential amendments remove our proposals on mayoral management arrangements, under which the elected mayor would also have become the chief executive of his or her authority.

George Howarth: May I ask the Minister a question about Lords amendment 112? As he will know, there are proposals—which are not universally accepted—for a directly elected mayor for the Liverpool city region. There is some support for them, and I support them in principle. Would the amended provisions make possible the creation of a directly elected city region mayor, but only on the basis that the powers of that person in regard to such important matters as transport, police and fire and rescue services are increased? Otherwise the amendment is pointless.

Andrew Stunell: The Bill does not encompass matters relating to city region mayors. That would require a separate provision. Let me, however, draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the amendments with which we will deal shortly relating to core cities, and to my right hon. Friend’s request for the core city regions to consider what powers they might wish to take. There are various options, but I should make it clear that there is no proposal in the Bill for a city region mayor.
	Under the Local Government Act 2003, local authorities can already conduct non-binding referendums on matters relating to their services or expenditure. In addition, the Bill gives local people powerful new rights to vote on key issues such as governance changes—for example, mayoral elections, council tax increases and, of course, neighbourhood plans. A number of members of the House of Commons Committee feared that, given those new rights, the provisions on referendums did not add
	enough to justify the additional burden. Similar observations were made in the House of Lords Committee, and, after careful reflection and discussion, we determined that the right course was to accept amendments 96 to 112 on Lords Report, removing the provisions relating to local referendums. That does not change the provisions on council tax referendums, which are the vehicle that switches the power to prevent excessive tax rises from the Government and the Secretary of State to the local communities and electors who will be paying those bills if they vote for them.

Helen Jones: What is the Minister’s response to the view of the Electoral Commission that if council tax referendums are introduced in 2012, the time scale will be too short to allow them to be prepared for properly? Will he listen to the commission’s representations?

Andrew Stunell: We will, of course, take careful account of all the advice we receive. The powers are to be changed only in respect of non-binding referendums. The Government are committed to giving people a greater say, but local people currently have many good opportunities to speak out and be heard.

Graham Stringer: The Minister and I were involved in the congestion charge referendum in Greater Manchester, and I think we both had concerns about the returning officer’s impartiality. Will the changes under discussion deal with situations such as that, where the returning officer was appointed by one side of the campaign and they operated from adjacent offices?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman reminds me that we sometimes make common cause on issues, and he is right to say there were concerns about that. The provision in question removes the proposal for non-binding referendums. Other proposals remain in the Bill, and the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, I believe, carried forward under the 2003 Act, which we are not amending.
	I shall now turn to the amendment proposed by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—and, I believe, supported by the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). It seeks to add to the Bill a scheme of binding local referendums. The Government are committed to giving people a greater say in how their communities are run, but we do not believe that it is sensible to introduce binding referendums on any subject that might arise. Given the potential scope of the local issues that binding referendums might cover and the many complex impacts that such a regime could have on local service delivery and local public finances, it would be unwise for there to be a presumption that all local referendums should be binding. There could be occasions where there are two competing referendums with potentially conflicting aims. There could be occasions where the course of action requested has significant cost implications and would have an adverse impact on the delivery of other services or priorities. Ultimately, it
	is the role of councillors to take decisions by balancing the various views of citizens alongside the needs of the community, particularly where there is no consensus, and those councillors are ultimately responsible to local people for their decisions through the ballot box. I hope the signatories to the amendment in question will air their points of view, but I hope they will not force a Division.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making those comments. It is important that such referendums be non-binding, especially when we consider cities such as Leeds, part of which I represent, where there are many diverse communities. In times of economic trouble, it is easy for a blame culture to arise, and I can envisage situations in which some might try to use hate in a referendum campaign. If referendums were binding, that could cause a problem.

Andrew Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for that wise remark. One can envisage such binding referendums having a variety of unintended negative consequences.
	The issue of standards was keenly debated in both Houses. Members and peers made it clear that they supported the abolition of the Standards Board regime and the removal of what was a top-down, bureaucratic system. However, concerns were raised about some aspects of our proposals to deal with local authority standards after the abolition of the Standards Board, and about whether they would ensure the high standards we all expect of local authorities. There was, however, much common ground and we were able to refine and develop our proposals as the Bill progressed through the House of Lords, and thereby get to a position which reassured all parties. All sides agreed that the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct was vital; the debate was about how best to achieve that.
	We have introduced amendments 29 to 36 to address these concerns. They focus on the offence of pecuniary interests, and ensure that there are appropriate defences, such as “reasonable excuse”. In simplifying our proposals, we have ensured that councillors cannot use their position for financial advantage, but without the danger of criminalising a councillor for an honest oversight or omission.
	There was a feeling that the provisions dealing with local authority standards after the abolition of the Standards Board needed to be set out in more detail. On Lords Third Reading, following meetings with peers of all parties and cross-Benchers, the Government introduced amendments 15, 20 to 26, 7, 125, 332 and 333, strengthening the standards provisions in the Bill. Local authorities will now have to draw up a code of conduct in accordance with the Nolan principles of standards in public life, which I am sure I do not need to remind Members are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Central Government will not otherwise prescribe its content, other than to require councillors to register and disclose both their pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in an open manner. Local authorities will also have to put in place arrangements both to deal with complaints that the code has been breached and for coming to a decision about complaints. Again, we will not stipulate what these arrangements should be.

Heather Wheeler: I thank the Minister for the clarity he is giving. In respect of this provision, district councils have felt that there might have been some suggestion that they would have to have a standards board looking after parish council complaints. I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, however.

Andrew Stunell: It is neither our intention nor what is provided for in the Bill.

Graham Jones: May I extend that question? We are going to have neighbourhood forums in respect of neighbourhood development plans, and there is also an issue to do with community budgets and the Government asking for community groups to come together to spend local money—that was recently proposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government for deprived areas such as mine. Will such matters be the responsibility of the new standards arrangements? They will not fall under parish council responsibility; rather, they will be dealt with by the district council or the Government. How will they fit in with the standards arrangements?

Andrew Stunell: I think the hon. Gentleman might be confusing different processes. The Standards Board regime applied to councillors at parish, district and county level. We are sweeping away the Standards Board and making sure that local authorities put in place sound and sensible provision to safeguard the integrity of themselves and the members who serve on them.
	To return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), district councils do not have to monitor parish councils. They do need to have in place arrangements to deal with allegations of misconduct by a parish councillor, but how they do that is up to them. We will expect district councils and parishes to work together to make arrangements as simple as possible.

Clive Betts: I welcome the fact that the Government at last recognise they may have some responsibility for appropriate standards being maintained in local councils. Can the Minister give an assurance, however, that where there is a serious complaint against a chief executive or leader of a council—perhaps about bullying of a junior member of staff or another councillor—the complainant will receive as robust an investigation into those complaints as under the current regime that the Government seek to abolish?

Andrew Stunell: Absolutely. We are clearly setting out what councils have to do and have in place, and the safeguard that they are required to provide.
	On the application of the standards regime in London, we took the opportunity on Lords Report to make amendments 16 to 19, 28, 37, 408, 411 and 413, which ensure that the Mayor of London and the Greater London assembly are given equal roles in and responsibility for promoting and maintaining high standards, rather than leaving that function to be discharged by the assembly alone. The amendments also allow the assembly and Mayor to delegate functions to a committee or member of staff.
	With these amendments, taken as a whole, we have achieved a balanced approach to the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct, with local authorities determining for themselves how best to achieve that. They will be freed up from the top-down, bureaucratic yoke of a national regime, of a model code and of a quango-regulated regime that became a vehicle for petty, vindictive and often politically motivated complaints. Our approach, which balances localism with safeguards, is the right one to ensure accountability locally and consistently high standards right across the country.
	This group also contains a number of more minor amendments, many of them technical in nature, but I will mention one because it will be of particular interest to Labour Members. Lords amendments 38 to 43 introduce measures intended to increase accountability on local authority decisions about pay and reward. During the Commons’ consideration, Labour Members welcomed these provisions, as far as they went, on senior pay and asked us to go further to see how the Bill could bring similar levels of accountability on the pay of the rest of an authority’s work force. We committed to do so, particularly in the light of Will Hutton’s review of fair pay in the public sector, which made several recommendations. Following the representations that we have received, and with that report as the background, we made amendments in the Lords which have the effect of expanding the scope of pay policy statements to include an authority’s policies towards its lowest-paid staff, as well as the relationship between the pay of its most senior staff and the rest of its work force. I hope that Labour Members will agree that these sensible changes broaden the scope of the measures to capture the spirit of their comments and the Hutton recommendations.
	In summary, this group of amendments will radically reduce the prescription bearing down on local authorities, freeing them up to serve their local communities better. I wish to pay tribute to the way in which hon. Members from all parties have—in Committee and on Report in this House, and in the other place—engaged with this part of the legislation to deliver a much-improved Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments, and I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendment (a) to a Division.

Helen Jones: We are dealing with a broad group of amendments relating to local authority governance. I wish to begin by speaking to amendment 15, which would ensure that it is compulsory rather than voluntary for local councils to adopt a code of conduct. The subsequent amendments make it clear that the code of conduct must be in line with the Nolan principles and would ensure that arrangements are in place to investigate complaints against a member, including the appointment of an independent person whose view must be sought before action is taken. As the Minister said, this group would also allow the Mayor of London to exercise functions relating to standards and provides for a register of interests.
	We welcome the amendments. It was bizarre that, in Committee, Government Members opposed the requirement to have a code of conduct—I found that extremely confusing. We accept, in this House, that we should be subject to clear standards of behaviour, but the Government were proposing that other elected representatives—people who deliver important services
	to their communities and take decisions that affect people’s daily lives—should not face a similar requirement; a council might have a code or it might not. Such a situation is not acceptable. It fails to offer sufficient protection to the public and it implies that the standards regime is optional.
	In Committee, we heard all sorts of convoluted justifications for such an approach. The Minister said that the old system was
	“an almost constant source of irritation to almost every local authority.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2011; c. 287.]
	He is right about—in my experience, it was usually the Lib Dems doing the irritating, because they were continually putting in complaints. He argued that authorities should have the freedom not to have a code of conduct, but that denigrates local government. He got very close to saying that local government was not important enough to be required to have a code of conduct. Nobody in Committee was standing up for the old system, but that did not mean that it was right not to have a code of conduct at all. Labour Members think it is a vital part of our democracy and deserves to be treated as such.
	The Minister argued that there was no need for compulsion because everyone would have a code of conduct anyway, but that failed to answer the question of what would happen if they did not. We are pleased to see the amendments and to see that clause 18 sets out clearly that a register of interests must be maintained in an authority and how pecuniary interests must be disclosed.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend could not be more accurate, in that most of the vexatious claims under the previous legislation came from Lib Dem councillors who had lost the argument. Is she satisfied that these proposals contain a sufficient filter or enough common-sense criteria to reduce the number of vexatious claims from Lib Dem councillors or to stop such claims?

Helen Jones: The only people who can stop vexatious claims by Lib Dem councillors are the Lib Dems, but I am sure that as they dwindle away in local government so, too, will the number of claims from them.
	These amendments are, no doubt, an improvement on the original Bill, but I have some reservations about how the system will work in practice. In particular, I wonder about the role of the “independent person” specified. He or she must have their views sought by the local authority before it makes any decision on an allegation. However, although their view must be taken into account, that person is not the decision maker and does not have the power to investigate. I accept that we do not want to set up a system that is too convoluted, but I foresee a real possibility of conflict. In most local authorities—in good local authorities—that person clearly will be involved, but there is no requirement for that to happen. In addition, that independent person may be consulted by those who are the subject of an allegation. That really raises the question of what the role is: is the independent person the judge, the defence counsel or merely a therapist for all those involved? It is very unclear and we will have to consider again how the arrangement would work in practice—it may be that more work than we intend will result for lawyers.
	Lastly, I am concerned that, although we now have something about pecuniary interests in the Bill, there is little about non-pecuniary interests, other than the fact that the code of conduct must secure their disclosure. We may well discover that it is necessary to have a clear definition of “non-pecuniary interests”, as we have in this House, for the sake of giving clarity to local councils and ensuring that minimum standards apply everywhere.
	Let me address amendments 38 to 46 and 48, which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) rather skated over. The Government did not want to accept this set of amendments either, but they have now been forced to do so. Originally, the Government intended to require local councils to publish only information about the pay of senior staff. The reason for that was very simple: they wanted to propagate the myth that councils would not have to make cuts if only they cut top salaries. Let us be very clear that that is a myth. Liverpool council has cut £500,000 from executive pay, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the £100 million-worth of cuts that it faces.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does the hon. Lady think that local authority money is better spent on libraries or on an international relations department?

Helen Jones: I think that, as Ministers keep saying from the Front Bench, it is for local authorities to make decisions about their priorities—the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
	Let me be clear that I believe that people have a right to know how their money is spent. My personal view is that pay at the top of local authorities has risen to an unsustainable level, but it has been following pay in the private sector. We ought to make it clear that more than 90% of those who earn more than £150,000 are in the private sector—not the public sector. It is very interesting that the Government do not say anything about that. Neither do they want to say very much about low pay in the public sector, because that does not fit the myths that they create.

Bob Neill: I am shocked at how little attention the hon. Lady has paid to our debates up to now. Does she not recognise that when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) raised this issue, we said at a very early stage that we were more than prepared to take that away and consider it? The tone of her contribution is markedly different from the very constructive manner of her colleagues in Committee. We kept our promise: we have reflected and delivered.

Helen Jones: If the Government believed that this issue was so important, they could have put it in the Bill to start with, but they did not because their focus was all on pay at the top of local authorities and not on the low pay that is endemic at the bottom.

Greg Clark: Once again the hon. Lady is being rather churlish. The Hutton committee had not reported by that time. We made a commitment that we would consider
	the recommendations in good faith and we have done that, as is reflected in the Bill. It would be nice if she could be a bit more generous in her remarks.

Helen Jones: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the reason was that the Hutton committee had not reported, one would have to ask why the Government introduced specifications in the Bill about senior pay. They did so because they want consistently to promote the myth that councils would not have to make front-line cuts if only they would cut top pay.
	We are pleased that councils will now have to set out details of who they regard as their lower-paid staff and their approach to the pay of those employees. They will also have to include a statement about their policy on pay dispersions—what used to be called differentials when I was negotiating. This is a real and growing issue in this country and people are extremely concerned about it. The amendments represent a very modest step, but at least they will make information available to the public and ensure that councils consider the issue. The publication of details about pay will expose the inequalities that prevail and encourage people to think about how many of the services they rely on are delivered by people on low pay. There are people out there who provide care for the elderly, clean our streets and empty our bins—people whom we take for granted but without whom our towns and cities would quickly cease to function—and they are often very low-paid.
	I regret that the Government have not seen fit to include the requirement for local government contractors to provide pay transparency if the value of their contract is in excess of £250,000. We argued in Committee for that to be included, because we believe that it is a matter of basic justice. We believe that those who are paid from public money should not be on poverty pay and that the firms that provide public services should demonstrate how they are spending our money. Contracts that are outsourced might seem like better value, but if they depend on low pay that is then topped up by benefits, not only are they an affront to the people who work in those services but they might cost more public money in the long run. The increase in the outsourcing of services has made this step even more important, because we want good companies to compete on quality and efficiency, not by undercutting pay levels and terms of service. The amendments will at least bring more transparency into the system, but it is a pity that the Government could not have extended the duty a little further.
	Let me address the amendments that remove the details regarding local referendums, which really illustrate what a mess the Government have got themselves into with the Bill. A welter of amendments dealt with this issue in the Lords, although it was dealt with extensively in the Bill Committee both in the evidence it received and during its debates. The late Sir Simon Milton, for example, pointed out that a referendum in London could cost £5 million if held on the same day as local elections, but could cost £11 million if held on a different day. However, it took the Government some time to realise what a huge drain on a local authority’s budget that could be. My hon. Friends also raised in Committee the huge costs that would be involved for local authorities, such as that for checking petitions for a referendum and
	for running the referendums. There was a real fear that the number of petitions and referendums would simply spiral over time. Even the leader of Shropshire council, who is a Conservative, warned that the costs could be “outrageous”, but it took a long time for the Government to change course.
	Underlying those provisions was the Government’s failure to trust elected councillors to decide how to engage with their electorate. We still hear a lot from Government Front Benchers about devolving powers to local authorities, but it took them some time to realise that imposing this system on local authorities would have been unwise to say the least. Local authorities might want to use petitions, referendums or public meetings—whatever they wish—and, like all of us in elected office, if they do not get it right they pay the penalty at the ballot box. That is as democracy should be.
	The Under-Secretary was adamant in Committee and would not budge an inch. I felt quite sorry for him, because he suffered the fate of many junior Ministers of being sent like officers on the Somme to defend an indefensible position until those above them finally decide that they ought to give way. Indeed, I am surprised that he is still here, because I understand that at the weekend the Lib Dem leader in Broxtowe called for him to resign following his performance. In Committee, the Under-Secretary would not accept the dangers of what he was proposing. However, there were risks that highly vocal pressure groups that did not necessarily represent the wider community—certainly not the whole authority area—could use the measures, so there was potential for whipping up feeling against necessary, but sometimes unpopular, provision.
	I recall examples that I have dealt with regarding housing for people with mental health problems in the community. My experience has been that the idea is usually unpopular because of the misconceptions about mental health that many people hold, but that if one talks to neighbours and tries to deal with their fears, that usually works. Once people are settled in their homes, overwhelmingly the community around them is very supportive and helpful. One could not do that sort of work in the face of a polarising referendum, which some people might whip up for their particular ends. No one is saying that a referendum is always a bad idea, but there are many ways of engaging with voters and that is only one of them.
	If amendment (a) to Lords amendment 112 is put to the vote, we will oppose it for the reasons that have already been stated. We do not believe that imposing binding referendums on local councils is the way forward, because they can be misused, they can have an impact on services elsewhere and, as was said earlier, they may be used by people promoting racial hatred or for other purposes that we would consider inappropriate. In the end, the local council must take a decision and stand by it.
	We welcome the amendments that remove the mayoral management arrangements from schedule 2 and delete the power of the Secretary of State to order that a specified authority must move to an elected mayor and cabinet system because, again, the original clauses clearly gave the lie to the idea that the Bill was about empowering
	local communities. On the contrary, it gave yet more power to the Secretary of State. The proposal to order a move to an elected mayor and cabinet was one of the most controversial in the Bill, together with the power to impose shadow mayors. I note that the Government are retaining the power to order an authority to hold a referendum on the subject because clearly they do not trust local councils, but at least we have seen some progress.
	It is astonishing how many U-turns Ministers have done on this issue. In 2007, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) told a Committee of the House:
	“I would prefer that the Government did not prescribe the governance system for councils at all.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2007; c. 251.]
	I expect that, as the former leader of a local authority, he believes that, so I do not know what happened in the meantime, unless he was sat on by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is now also an Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, told the same Committee:
	“governance should be entirely a matter for local councils”—[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007; c. 269.]
	I agree, but he is a Lib Dem, and we have all seen “Focus” leaflets which argue different things in different areas.
	The real point about these proposals is that they were entirely undemocratic—a fact that was recognised clearly in the other place. They would not have given the decision to local people and would have given whoever was made the shadow mayor a huge electoral advantage in any poll that followed. We believe that that was an entirely unacceptable way of going about things. To add to the confusion, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, have both said on different occasions that a mayor and cabinet system would only follow a referendum of local people. That is typical of the mischief and muddle that have characterised the Bill. So bad were the Government’s original proposals that even Tory councillors were speaking out against them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) says from a sedentary position, “You don’t want to listen to them.” I hope his own councillors hear what he says.
	The most outrageous suggestion from the Government was the proposal to allow an elected mayor also to be the chief executive of a local authority. Goodness knows what put that into their heads. It reflects a degree of confusion between political leadership and administration which is extremely worrying. I well recall in years past, when Labour took control of Lancashire county council, my former hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Joan Humble, going to the social services offices and saying, “We are going to implement this manifesto. You are going to tell me how to do it, and I will listen to your advice on how to do it, but make no mistake, we’re going to implement it.” That is the difference between political leadership and administration. One listens to officers about the best way to do things, but one has a political direction.
	The problem with what the Government were proposing was the muddling of those two, which has huge potential for undermining standards in the governance of local authorities because it removes the system of checks and balances that help local authorities to run properly. Removing the proposal and the introduction of a mandatory requirement to have a code of conduct is a step forward, as are some of the other amendments in the group. I only wish that the Government had listened earlier in Committee to the points that were made by my hon. Friends.

Zac Goldsmith: I shall be brief, as I have made this point many times to Ministers.
	The coalition agreement states:
	“We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.”
	Despite being wildly enthusiastic about the introduction of referendums, I was critical of this component of the Bill because I did not think it went nearly far enough. This aspect of the Bill recognised that people want more say and more control over the decisions that affect their lives, but because the referendums that we were proposing were to be non-binding, I think the Government would have failed to deliver. I tried on many occasions to persuade the Minister to convert the idea so that the referendums would be binding, but I failed.
	I was told to take comfort from the fact that this was a start, and that the referendums did not need to be binding because only a mad local authority would ever go against the wishes of its electorate. Well, there are many mad local authorities, as everyone here knows. [Interruption.] I will name one or two. Earlier this year King’s Lynn and West Norfolk threatened to build a large incinerator, which triggered an almighty backlash from the local population. In the ensuing referendum the turnout was 61%, which would make most constituencies envious in the run-up to a general election. That is a serious figure—61% of the 80,000 people polled —and 92% of those voted against the incinerator. That was an overwhelming result, and hon. Members can probably guess the outcome: the result was ignored by the local authority.

Helen Jones: Did the question include where the incinerator should go?

Zac Goldsmith: To be honest, I do not know what options were offered, but a large percentage of the population turned out to vote and the vast majority of those made their opinion known and were ignored. Whether we agree with that decision is academic. The fact is that people had their say and were ignored.

Alec Shelbrooke: To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes about councils listening, when the then governing coalition of Conservatives and Liberals on Leeds city council was discussing an incinerator, which I opposed, the Labour councillors made great play of the fact that the incinerator was going to be built. They won power on the council in 2010, and they are now building the incinerator. We have not heard a peep from the councillors who opposed it before.

Zac Goldsmith: We could go on. I shall take the opportunity to give one more example of a mad council ignoring the wishes of local people. That was in my own
	local authority in Richmond, where a couple of years ago—
	[Interruption.]
	It happens even in places such as Richmond, where I called a referendum on a proposal to bring in a supermarket, which local people felt would seriously damage the independent shops in one of the much loved streets in Barnes. We had a bigger turnout in that referendum than in any general election, but we had a Mugabe-esque result: nearly 90% of people rejected Sainsbury’s, yet the local authority did absolutely nothing to prevent the takeover of the high street by Sainsbury’s. Again, whether we agree with the decision or not, democracy ought to play a role in such decisions.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case in favour of referendums. He referred to overwhelming turnouts in favour of a proposition. However, the proposal before us contains no safeguard for such a referendum, and there could be a binding referendum on a very small turnout. How would he deal with that problem?

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a safeguard, although it may not be enough. The Government’s proposal was that 5% of the population could trigger a referendum, which I always felt was too low and would allow it to become a cranks’ charter, because it does not take much to get 5% of people to call for something, and we could end up debating some mad ideas. My amendment would raise the minimum number of signatures required to trigger a referendum to 20%, but I would be happy with 30%, because it should be difficult. A referendum should act as a veto in the hands of the people, but it should not be an easy mechanism to deploy.

Hilary Benn: We have just heard about one potential weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, and I would like to raise another. He has made great play of the fact that the result of the referendum would be binding—it is repeated several times in the wording of the amendment—but it then states that that would be
	“subject to exceptions set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
	Could he assist the House by giving three examples of the kind of exceptions that he has in mind?

Zac Goldsmith: I can give the right hon. Gentleman one exception that covers many more than three: matters that are not in the control of the local authority. If the decision can be made without reference to national Government, the local authority would be bound by the results of a referendum. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman described the weakness that I highlighted earlier as a “potential” weakness, because I hope that I answered the question adequately.

Hilary Benn: The example that the hon. Gentleman gives seems to be covered already by subsection (2) of his amendment, which says that a referendum can take place only if relates to one of the four examples given in paragraphs (a) to (d). It seems to me that his answer falls at an earlier hurdle—his own amendment. I ask him again whether he can give three examples of situations in which he thinks the Secretary of State should say that the result of a referendum is not binding.

Zac Goldsmith: We are getting into a technical exchange—[ Interruption. ] It is very technical, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, as Government Members have pointed out from a sedentary position. The previous Government’s proposals for the non-binding aspect of the referendum were clearly inadequate, but I concede that, as the Minister said at the time, they represent a start. It was a start until the entire chapter was dropped as it was being negotiated in the other place. That might have been a mistake, in which case I am happy to reintroduce the concept in the amendment, but it takes the previous Government’s idea one step further. The amendment would give people power to instigate a local referendum, which is a commitment that all Government Members made in the run-up to the last election. We all committed to ensuring that people could have their say in local referendums, and in my view it was an important part of the manifesto. Crucially, it is binding. Crucially, we have raised the threshold to 20%, which I hope would prevent the kind of abuses that people are worried about.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend once again makes a powerful case for referendums, but the point is that although the trigger for instigating a referendum would be 20% of the electorate, there would be no safeguard when it came to the voting. The turnout could be as low as 5% or 10%, but the result would still bind a local authority.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not argue on that point, because I do not necessarily disagree with him. The purpose of the amendments is to introduce the concept of binding local referendums. If it was decided as a result of a proper debate in the House that the minimum proportion of signatures needed to be 30%, I would not argue with that. At one point the Bill specified that it would be 15%, and after much discussion the Members in whose names the amendment stands decided to raise the figure to 20%. In my view, that is not an issue to get hung up about. Similarly, I certainly do not oppose the concept of a minimum turnout, and would have been willing to include that in an amendment, following proper discussion. It is the principle that is important. It was an error for the Government to remove even a half-hearted attempt at handing power back to local people, and it is a mistake that I think people will remember.
	I will not press the amendment to a vote, because clearly it does not enjoy overwhelming support, and Front Benchers on both sides of the House have said that they will whip against it. If I pressed it to a Division, I would not expect to achieve anything other than wasting people’s time. However, I hope that the Government will think again and recognise that they have an opportunity to show that when they talk about localism they actually mean it, and that they trust people to make decisions that affect their own lives. I hope that they will recognise, as the Minister has done many times, that no one is better placed to decide the nature, shape, form and future of an area than the people who live in it. I urge the Government to think again.

Graham Jones: I want to return briefly to the local code of conduct and how it will work. We all know that the Standards Board is going—and
	I, for one, am not sorry to see it go, but I would like to see something put in its place. We must have some form of security. I think that the Minister failed to answer my question, so I will put it again and give him the opportunity to intervene if he wants to. This legislation establishes neighbourhood forum groups that will shape and influence planning policy. Residents will be drawn almost at random, or it will be the usual people who get involved in community activities who will come forward. Surely they must be accountable in some way, according to some form of standards? They cannot simply operate in a vacuum, in which things can simply happen and then there is no way to hold them accountable for their decisions.
	Last week the Department for Communities and Local Government announced the Community First programme, offering £30 million grants to 597 of the most deprived wards. Here the Government are asking for neighbourhood committees to be set up. In my constituency, Peel ward, one of the most deprived in the country, is to receive £17,000 in each of the next two years as part of the Community First programme. The residents were told last week that they will have to set up a committee to spend what is essentially public money, yet there is no accountability. The Minister is totally unclear about how local authorities will deal not only with elected members in local authorities, but with unelected members who will be involved in some of the decision making that will help to shape public policy.

Andrew Stunell: I wanted to hear the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s point in case I was missing something fundamental, but I was not. I hope that I can return to the point later. I can assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that changes the requirement for any body that receives public money to spend it in a lawful way, and with integrity. If it is a charity or community group, the Charity Commission and other regulatory bodies will kick in. He is erecting a substantial mountain out of a very small molehill.

Graham Jones: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I think that his answer is more smoke and mirrors. I am asking where the judicial framework is, and his answer is that there is none, but there is a legal framework, within which we all operate. If that is the case, why do we have standards in public life? It is because that is a judicial element that governs and reflects the service that we all give—but we encounter problems when people make decisions that are not in the best public interest, but in their own personal or prejudicial interests.

Bob Neill: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that every voluntary organisation that receives public funding should be subject to a standards regime? Surely he would accept that although neighbourhood forums, for example, propose the neighbourhood plan, there are other safeguards, in terms of the referendum, consistency with the local authority’s strategic plan and national policy, and a test of soundness, to deal with such matters. A standards regime would be grossly disproportionate in such cases.

Graham Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify that. Many of the organisations to which the Government give money have robust frameworks, but we are talking about a group of individuals who
	might, in the example of Peel ward, live on an ordinary street near me. They are not subject to the controls, charters, rules or regulations of any organisation. They are outside that, and not part of any judicial framework, so I do not think that he is right. I accept that there is a grey area between who we give money to and how far we should hold them to account in public life. None the less, when someone who lives two streets away from me and is not involved in any organisation can get involved in spending £17,000, might misspend it and cannot be held to account, there is definitely a void. I take the Minister’s point, but I am raising a concern that he has failed to answer.

Bob Neill: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the local authority remains the accountable body, and the normal district audit and other regimes apply to it. I appreciate the sincerity of his point, but I earnestly urge him to think again, because he is missing the point, which is not as grave as he might think.

Graham Jones: I appreciate that, but, having a lot of experience in local government, I think that the Minister is missing the point: there is no judicial framework, so somebody can go out and do something, and if there is a complaint by another member of the public about those actions there is nowhere for it to go, so the complaints that we get now could continue. If that is going to happen in planning policy, we will have some problems, so we need a substantive framework and an opportunity for people to bring into public debate the decisions that the individuals on those bodies make.
	Further to that point, I am concerned that there is no robust framework for standards, and again I bring local government experience to that point. A lot of vexatious complaints are politically motivated—[Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear the cheers from Government Members; I do not know where such complaints are coming from, but they certainly did not come from the Labour side in my local authority. Regardless of that, those who have worked in local authorities know that many complaints are politically motivated, and they need to be removed. That is a serious and substantive point, and simply having a non-elected chair but an elected committee is not acceptable. When we look around local government, we find that even that has failed. There needs to be an unelected, unaccountable—sorry, accountable—[ Interruption. ] I hope the record is corrected. There needs to be an accountable but non-elected body, because that, more than anything, will stop a lot of vexatious complaints. The Government would be doing themselves a favour if they introduced such a framework into local government.

Alec Shelbrooke: I shall comment on a couple of amendments, but, starting with amendment 15 and following the remarks of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on the Standards Board, I was a councillor for six years, from 2004 to 2010, and once during that time I was taken to the Standards Board but found not really to have done anything wrong. The local authority dealt with the matter internally, but the person who brought it did not like the decision and tried to take it to appeal, and that is the point: it was about a planning issue.
	Councillors stood in the ward I represented in Leeds on manifestos saying that they would protect certain characteristics of villages, and, when a planning application was made that totally undermined that, they wrote a letter of objection. The person who made the planning application took them to the Standards Board, saying that they were making a prejudicial complaint. That person used the board as a bullying tactic against councillors, and it happened time and again.
	Nobody in this Chamber would say that people should not expect anything except the highest standards from those in public office. Everybody across the Chamber agrees with that, but the provisions brought in by the Standards Board were taken up by members of the public. Those people wanted to force the issue with a councillor, and they did not just make their life a misery; they cost them, personally and financially, a fortune.

Graham Jones: I was a victim of a vexatious complaint, on a very minor technicality, to the Standards Board. It was politically motivated, and, although I will not say which party chased it, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such things are very annoying.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes my point. The complaint against him was politically motivated, whereas the one against me was made by somebody who was trying to get a particular decision on a planning issue and, effectively, trying to bully councillors not to get involved. There were several such cases, and whether someone has such politically motivated Standards Board cases, or whether the case comes from a slightly different angle, depends on which part of an authority they represent and the biggest issues there.
	I do not want to get into which party takes the most people to the Standards Board, but I feel that the Labour party has been slightly unfair on our coalition colleagues. In the city of Leeds, Labour councillors formed a queue around the block to take others to the Standards Board. Indeed, one Labour councillor in Leeds, whom I am to going to name in the Chamber, took many people to the board over things that he considered to be a problem when Labour was in opposition, but now his party is in power and he is still not getting the information he wants, he is still pursuing the complaints. Even his own leadership say that they cannot keep control of him.
	Do not get me wrong: the mindset behind establishing the Standards Board was correct. Credit should go to the previous Government for setting it up to demand the highest standards, but in reality and in practice that is not how it has worked, and it has become a useless tool that stops people writing in a manifesto what policies they would like to pursue. The board has been twisted and manipulated.
	The former Mayor of London was taken to the Standards Board over a comment he made, and luckily he received the ruling that it had been made in his personal and private life, but what ruling was given to us councillors? It stated, “If someone comes up to you in the pub, you must say, ‘I am sorry, I am not a councillor.’” Come on, let us get real. Either we engage
	with our public, talk to people and understand things, or we become part of a robotic system in which the public are further distanced from us.
	I guess that the vast majority of Members engage locally with their constituents, going down the pub, talking to people in the high street, getting information from what people feel is happening on the street and talking to them about it. Local councillors cannot do that any more, because unless they declare at the outset, “I am not discussing this with you, come to my surgery at this time,” they run a risk, and that represents a big disconnect from and disservice to the public. That was an unintended consequence of the Livingstone case, but whether we agree with his comments or not, that is not the issue, because they occurred in his private life, and the case should never have gone to the Standards Board.
	We do have protection of the public: it is called the ballot box. That was always my argument as a councillor when it was said that someone was going to the Standards Board. There is a ballot box, whereby people can be voted in or out, and if someone were seen to be wholly corrupt it would not matter whether they were in the safest seat in the country, they would be voted out.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alec Shelbrooke: I will give way. I think I know what is coming.

Graham Jones: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not want to be controversial, but let us take the Community First programme in my constituency’s Peel ward, where residents are going to spend public money, or the neighbourhood forums. They are not elected. Where is the ballot box for those people?

Alec Shelbrooke: But there is something called the Serious Fraud Office—the fraud squad—and there is a law of the land, so we do not need to pursue such things through the Standards Board. If people misappropriate public funds, they can be reported to the police and there can be an investigation. Sometimes we double up on legislation to try to say to the public, “Look what we’re doing,” but in reality they have ended up with less influence and power, because things have become bound up in an operation that has not helped at all.

Graham Jones: If my community group decides that it is going to spend money on a project for which it has ownership, or on a project down the road for which there is no ownership within the Community First programme, and it then decides to skew the funding to what suits its needs, not somebody else’s, how does that fit in? That is not illegal, that is not fraud, but it is against accepted standards in public life.

Alec Shelbrooke: I invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene again on me. Who is awarding the grants to those people to spend that money?

Graham Jones: The Government are.

Alec Shelbrooke: Yes, but the money comes from the council, and that is the point: it comes from the local authority to start with.

Graham Jones: It actually comes directly from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Alec Shelbrooke: Through local communities and local government, projects are being identified—[ Interruption. ] I give way to the Minister.

Andrew Stunell: I wonder whether I may help my hon. Friend by reminding him that any body or organisation that spends public money is subject to the equalities duty, introduced under equalities legislation introduced by this Government earlier this year.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for assisting me with that line of debate. There are protections in place: there is the law of the land, there is legislation and, when it comes to democratically elected people, there is the ballot box. I do not think it will do any harm to local government to remove the Standards Board and consider other areas, because it has wasted hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds of taxpayers’ money on vexatious, vindictive claims. Beyond that, the board has slowed the process of local government, as well as the service and, indeed, the communications we, as elected Members, would want to have with our public. We need to address that.
	I shall also speak to amendment 112 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Again, I want to focus on the facts. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments and for the opportunity to intervene on the Minister earlier. If we have a binding referendum, we do not have control over what someone may be made to do. We can bring in threshold limits, but there is something called the internet, which makes it easy for people to move forward with ideas and get to thresholds. A relatively low number of people could then go and vote, and we would be faced with some very nasty legislation.

Zac Goldsmith: I have a brief question. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, would my hon. Friend support it if it included turn-out thresholds, not just trigger-mechanism thresholds?

Alec Shelbrooke: I would not support the amendment for the reasons my hon. Friend just mentioned, because if someone wants to have a referendum that is binding on any subject, they leave themselves open to several problems. My hon. Friend’s amendment contains provisions that he feels would deal with that. However, in this place, we must be very careful about the legislation we introduce and the language we use. We may try to foresee the instances that may occur and try to stop some unsavoury referendums taking place, but once the legislation saying that it is binding is in place, someone somewhere will find a way around it.
	We live in heightened times of tension. That is inevitable in an economic downturn. We go through periods when there is a blame culture and it is easy to pick on the weakest person.
	If the House will indulge me, I would like to refer to “The Simpsons”. I am sure I am not alone when I say that I am huge fan of “The Simpsons”. Some of the episodes can be particularly cutting. I remember one
	episode when some of the characters woke up to find a bear in the front garden and decided that they wanted to introduce a bear tax to keep the bears out. The mayor had a meeting and said, “I want to bring in a bear tax.” Everybody said, “We’re not paying any more tax”, to which the mayor said, “All right. Well, I blame the immigrants.” Everybody cheered and the mayor said, “We’ll have a referendum on it.” As the episode goes on, they have a referendum to kick out the immigrants because they are unhappy about having to pay more tax and there was not enough tax to sort out the bears. Later, the episode highlights the fact that people in their communities, their friends and so on have an immigrant past and are fully integrated. There is a road to Damascus moment for Homer who goes around saying, “This is a terrible referendum. We can’t vote on this.” The result comes in, and there is a 96% vote to get rid of all the immigrants because nobody listens.

Zac Goldsmith: I apologise for intervening again, but my hon. Friend’s argument is exactly an argument in favour of democracy and referendums. If an unattractive proposition is made, people’s gut reaction may be to take the least attractive option. However, after debate and discussion—just as Homer Simpson proved to my hon. Friend in his youth—the right decision is normally reached. There are examples of that happening. In Switzerland, there was recently a vote on a motion that would have made migration to that country almost impossible. All the pundits and pollsters said the proposal would be overwhelmingly accepted; in fact, it was rejected by two to one as a result of the type of discussions prompted by the referendum. I say to my hon. Friend: please do not fear democracy in the way so many of our colleagues here do.

Alec Shelbrooke: It is not democracy I fear; it is people who may not be fully informed going to the ballot box. Let us not forget that the Third Reich was elected.
	In conclusion, there is a place for referendums, and the balance in the Bill is about right. However, referendums should not be binding, which could open things up. It is perhaps sometimes hon. Members’ responsibility not to adopt the position we would take ourselves, but to consider what is best overall to protect the people from those who would seek to abuse and twist a system, as, indeed, happened with the Standards Board.

Annette Brooke: It is a privilege to follow that interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). I mean that; his contribution was very interesting.
	I welcome the contributions made by noble Members in the other place, which have been exemplary. There has been working together, cross-party work and working among the Cross Benchers. Ministers in the other place have carried forward issues raised in Committee in this place. Therefore, I am not sure why there is so much criticism of the amendments. During consideration of the Bill, there has been co-operation with the Local Government Association. This is perhaps more relevant to the next string of amendments, but I would like to put on the record the fact that I have recently become vice-president of the Local Government Association.
	I welcome the Government amendments because, for the most part, they will extend local decision making and they are all steps in the right direction. Restrictions on area committees will be removed and councils will be able to choose what sort of structure they operate under and when they change structure. I was a councillor when cabinet structures were imposed by a Labour Government. There is also the timing of when a vote on all-out local elections may be held, if that is the choice of the local authority. I welcome the abolition of the concept of shadow mayors, because that was certainly not the best example of local decision making.
	We have said much tonight about the standards reforms. They are possibly the most important matter to discuss in relation to this string of amendments. It seems that all hon. Members recognise that reform was necessary. Sadly, I think it would be true to say that hon. Members of all political parties have probably engaged in vexatious complaints, so it should not be only my party that is the thrust of such comments. We need to recognise that, unfortunately, the set up—the nature of the beast—meant that vexatious complaints would occur.
	When the Bill was first introduced, it was a reaction to a great need for reform and it moved the pendulum. As often happens, it probably moved it too far. The other place has pulled that pendulum back and has achieved a very interesting balance. There has certainly been much discussion on the matter. At the back of my mind, I feel that we should be prepared to review how things are working. Obviously, we do not have such a provision before us today, but it would be useful to know how the new system is working out in, for example, two years’ time. It might be necessary to revisit the system. None of us has a crystal ball and can see how well the new system might work, but this is definitely the right type of reform. It is important to get a balance and, as much as possible, make the measure local. Nevertheless, there need to be important protections.
	I therefore heartily welcome all the Government amendments in this string. I am afraid that I will not support the amendment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). His passion for increasing local democracy is very important, but there are issues with local referendums, not least the fact that they could lead to conflicts and abuse. The amendment clearly has a number of technical deficiencies and therefore could not be considered anyway.

Mark Reckless: I shall address my remarks to the amendments relating to referendums—Lords amendment 112 and the excellent counter-amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and to the Minister’s remarks about council tax referendums.
	It occurs to me to wonder how our counterparts in the United States Congress or the German Bundestag might look at our debate. It is about the Localism Bill, yet we seek to prescribe almost every last detail of how and when a locality might consult its people on an issue—whether that consultation should be binding or non-binding, how far it extends, and what exactly should be the trigger of signatures or the turn-out required. An alternative way of doing this, even if there were certain
	minimums, would be to allow localities themselves to experiment on what works best for them and to consult their residents as they wish.
	I agree with the Government that the Bill introduces an improvement—at least a small one—in relation to a council tax referendum, in that when a local council comes up with a proposal for a level of council tax, it is somewhat better that central Government might require a referendum on that level rather than merely disagreeing with it and putting in place one that central Government happen to prefer. The local authority is the single body that is setting the council tax, then central Government come in with a successiveness tax test, and then there has to be a referendum.
	I am concerned about how the Bill interacts with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The way in which the police precept is set has some very special aspects relative to other local government precepts. The first of these is that the police precept is a pretty small proportion of the overall council tax, so setting a percentage increase above which it is required to have a local referendum acts as a far greater disincentive to placing a precept above that than it does for local government, because the proportionate cost of having a referendum for the police precept is far higher—perhaps up to 2% of the police budget. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for a police body to attempt to go beyond what central Government have set as that trigger.
	Overall, I am concerned that setting these referendum requirements undermines the incentive to vote for local politicians who want to stand on a lower-tax basis. If central Government are in any case providing an automatic safeguard so that even if there is an enormously left-wing council that wants to push up the council tax by a huge amount, that reduces the incentive to vote for politicians who believe in lower taxes.

Graham Jones: I remind the hon. Gentleman that my left-wing Labour council is setting a 0% council tax level for the forthcoming year.

Mark Reckless: The hon. Gentleman’s Labour council, like every other council in the country, has set a 0% council tax level because this Government, who believe in localism, have come in with an offer they cannot refuse.
	I was a councillor for four years, and I am afraid that such measures do not just reduce the incentive to vote for parties of the centre right: it sometimes leads to good Conservatives taking offsetting measures to give themselves greater scope for freedom from central Government. My own council of Medway had virtually the lowest unitary tax in the country outside the Scilly Isles, yet when we attempted to put in a tax increase that was very slightly above the standard percentage cap that was set, we were not designated but put under the process whereby action would be taken against us the following year if we did not pull our socks up. In fact, our increase was far lower, in absolute terms, than increases of similarly sized councils elsewhere.
	The problem is the fear of being capped—of not knowing what the level will be next year—and possibly even the fear of being forced to have very expensive referendums with very embarrassing results for the local politicians, particularly if they do not succeed, and for which their locality has to pay for in any event. That
	may lead some councils, even good Conservative ones, to put up council tax by more than they otherwise would in a particular year so that they have a higher base and there is less concern that they might get capped in a future year in needing to put through a substantive increase.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend think it is fair that the Government can impose a cap and say, “That’s it—you’re not raising it”, as in his fine example from Medway? Would it not be better to take that to the people and say, “Do you want to have this rise in council tax which we believe is above a cap?”, when he could argue exactly the case he has argued for Medway?

Mark Reckless: As I said, I believe that in this respect the Bill is a marginal improvement on what we had before. Let us consider the idea that the federal Governments in the US or Germany would look at each state, determine what the level is—indeed, the same level for all states—and say, “If you want to raise your property tax by more than that, you have to have this referendum, and this is the exact way in which we specify that it has to be run.” By comparison, we seem to have an extraordinarily centralised state, and I am disappointed that the tiny steps in the Bill have only a very little impact on that.
	In the policing universe, the Bill is not just a little bit of progress but a step back. The significant difference is that there is not a single body making the decision, as with a local council within the referendum protection; we are setting up a special local body, a police and crime panel, that will have scrutiny, oversight and an overview of the directly elected commissioner. We said in the coalition agreement that the elected police and crime commissioner
	“will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives.”
	We were then told—I questioned the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about this earlier—that the panel
	“will have a power to trigger a referendum on the policing precept recommended by the Commissioner.”
	The Minister said that he disagreed with the premise of my question, which was in fact the premise in the White Paper that the Home Office published in July last year, “Policing in the 21st century”, which said that the police and crime panel will have this power. However, the Bill, which provides for these referendums, has no provision to allow the police and crime panel to trigger such a referendum, and the powers appear to have been taken by the Secretary of State, despite the coalition agreement and what was promised in the White Paper last year.
	When the Minister spoke about this on 30 March, it seemed that his officials had not properly explained to him his own Bill. He said that
	“the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The”
	police and crime
	“panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 433.]
	That suggests that the referendum was going to be between the commissioner’s precept and an alternative proposed by the panel. That is what we said would
	happen, but unfortunately the provisions of the Bill do not allow it to happen. In the case of the police precept, we are bringing in this third body—the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, not the local panel, has the power to trigger a referendum. That is a highly regressive step that will prevent the elected police and crime commissioner from establishing a responsible relationship with his chief constable—perhaps being able to get him more budget and, in return, getting different priorities for policing. They will always be looking over their shoulder to the Secretary of State, who is giving a standard rise that they cannot go above without the risk of a local referendum that would cost perhaps 2% of the council tax, which they would have to pay even if they won. This will have a chilling effect on our proposals for police accountability.
	I am very disappointed, because in 2005 I wrote a book called “Direct Democracy” for which I had four co-authors—my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), and Daniel Hannan, who is now an MEP. In that, we called for direct democracy and the devolution of powers, and, in particular, an elected person in charge of overseeing the police who would have local powers. We still believed that in the coalition agreement and we still believed it in last year’s White Paper when we said that the panel would be able to trigger a referendum. It is terribly disappointing that this Bill fails to provide for that and instead hugs the power to the Secretary of State.

Bob Blackman: I want to make three points. The first is about the codes of conduct and the abolition of the Standards Board. I, like many local councillors at the time, was the subject of numerous referrals to the Standards Board. The first that anyone heard of it was when they received the letter from the Standards Board saying that it had decided to take no further action on the vexatious complaint. It could take many months and, in certain cases, years before a complaint was determined one way or the other. In cases that were chosen for investigation, the investigations could take the length of a councillor’s term of office before it was decided whether they were guilty.
	I have concerns about what is being proposed. I completely agree with having a national standard for the codes of conduct that local authorities should impose. There should be national standards and everybody should abide by them, even though they will be monitored at a local level. There is a key concern about how valid complaints will be investigated. I have a concern about elected councillors overseeing complaints about other elected councillors and about how politicians might seek to gain party political advantage over one another through standards committees. The concept of having independent individuals in charge is of course welcome. However, the risk is whether such people can be found for every local authority and whether they will be of a suitable standard to make the system work. I have concerns but, broadly speaking, the Government’s amendments should be welcomed.
	My second point touches on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on referendums. The key concern is about the difference between a local authority consulting
	the people it serves and it being bound by a referendum, possibly on a single proposition. I do not think that local authorities in this country consult properly. Instead, they notify the public that they will do something to them, regardless of what they think of it.
	I will give an example from a local authority on which I used to sit. The London borough of Brent has decided to close half its libraries. The council put it to the public and 82% of people said that they did not like it. The answer from the council was, “We’re still going to do it.” That was the result of a consultation. The idea was overwhelmingly rejected, but the council are progressing with it. That would be a case, like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park described, in which a referendum would undoubtedly go against what the local authority wishes to do. However, that does not change the fact that local authorities are elected to serve and to make decisions. They should do so even if those decisions are not liked by the people whom they represent.
	I will also cite the case of Bristol, which several years ago conducted a referendum on the level of council tax to be charged. The council put four options to the people of Bristol: a reduction in council tax with a drastic reduction in services; a marginal reduction in council tax with a marginal reduction in services; a stand-still option; or the council’s preferred option of an increase in council tax and keeping services at the same level. Lo and behold, the people voted for a substantial reduction in council tax and a substantial reduction in services—not quite what was expected. One has to be careful in taking on a referendum. For the purposes that I have described, a referendum is clearly not the route to follow.
	Equally, as I have said in interventions, if we had referendums with a trigger of 20% or 30% of people signing a petition, that would not necessarily work if the turnout for such a referendum would be far too low. That would be ridiculous and would impose on local authorities an unfair basis for making decisions. As we all know, it is easy to get people to sign a petition, but it is another thing to get them to vote. Clearly there is a role for petitions in consultations, but using them to trigger referendums is difficult.
	My third point relates to the position on council tax. I have always been an advocate for councils being free to set council tax at the level they choose. If councillors choose to impose a swingeing increase in council tax, the public have the right to vote them out at the next election. We should trust the people to do that. I have always been stringently opposed to the capping of council tax or previous forms of local taxation, because it takes away the decision-making powers of local authorities. Councils should not have referendums held over their heads on council tax, but people should have the power of the ballot box to remove councillors who vote for a swingeing increase. That is the right way to protect people.
	Most local authorities in this country have their councillors elected by thirds, so the local electorate has the power every year to remove councils and councillors who choose to vote for large increases in council tax. In unitary authorities, there are all-out elections, which means that councillors, having been safely elected, can take decisions at the beginning of their cycle to get their
	betrayal out of the way before they face the threat of the ballot box three or four years later. Perhaps we need to re-examine the governance of local authorities and ask whether they should face more frequent local elections, rather than having periodic elections when the decisions made by the local electorate are often more about the national Government of the day than the decisions that are made at a local level.
	Having spoken about those three key issues, I will conclude my remarks. I warmly welcome the amendments proposed by the Government.

Martin Vickers: I rise to speak about the referendum issue. Members will note that I am one of the signatories to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).
	I support the principle of referendums and believe that they are a natural development of our democratic process. Having spent many years as a local councillor fighting against centralisation, I warmly welcome the moves that the Government are making, but they could go further. To give an example, I sponsored and secured a referendum in one ward of my unitary authority to abolish a town council. I did so because there was clear opposition to a council that was charging in excess of £100 per household for band A properties. There was an overwhelming vote to abolish that council. Unfortunately, the referendum was not binding, because it was held under the Local Government Act 2003, to which the Minister referred. The unitary council of north-east Lincolnshire subsequently overturned the referendum result.

Andrew Percy: Outrageous.

Martin Vickers: I agree, it was outrageous that a decision of the electorate that had been arrived at democratically through the ballot box should be overturned by a local authority. Having granted the referendum initially, it should have reversed the result, if that was its wish, only through another referendum.

Andrew Percy: To assist my hon. Friend in his point, I add that in my constituency the people of Old Goole are seeking to separate from Goole and form their own parish council. There is a huge argument going on, and the one way in which it could be resolved is through a binding referendum.

Martin Vickers: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and I am sure Members of all parties can think of such examples.
	The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made a valid point about premises that cater for people with mental health difficulties. I accept that local authorities have very difficult decisions to make in such cases. I can recall there being such a decision in my ward six or seven years ago, and if a referendum had been taken in the street in question there would certainly have been an overwhelming vote against such an establishment. However, it would be open to local authorities, as it is under the 2003 Act, to determine the arrangements for a referendum —whether it should be held in a ward or within the authority as a whole. There are ways of broadening the electoral base to cover such circumstances.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made good points about turnouts. I accept that there should be an increase to 20% in the proportion of signatures needed to trigger a referendum, which would be a way of weeding out the frivolous requests. So would the other criteria that would be used to determine whether a referendum should go forward.
	My hon. Friend’s amendment is an obvious move forward. We argue about referendums—only a couple of weeks ago we debated whether we should have one at national level. They are a natural development of the democratic process if we are to give our voters really meaningful power.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s points. I think Members of all parties have been guilty of trying to explain why they do not think particular referendums, on serious issues, should be binding.
	If there were a referendum suggesting that councillors should not receive any money whatever for their work, I believe it would find popular support, yet councillors work hard and need some sort of recompense. If that referendum were binding, how would councillors deal with that situation?

Martin Vickers: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, and my response is obvious—I am arguing in favour of binding referendums, so I believe that such a referendum would have to be binding. There could be turnout—

Andrew Percy: Thresholds.

Martin Vickers: That is the word I am looking for; I thank my hon. Friend. Such referendums could therefore easily be accommodated.
	Members should appreciate that there is growing apathy and disenchantment with our whole political process. The Government have tried to respond to that through measures in the Bill, through e-petitions and so on, but the only way we can really give people power is by giving them a clear-cut vote on issues. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said that he would not press his amendment, I hope that it will spur the Government on to further developments in the months and years to come.

John McDonnell: I apologise to the House for coming so late to the debate. I am afraid I have been chairing a meeting elsewhere. I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is not in his place now, but of course he has assiduously attended the rest of the debate. I wanted to ask him a couple of questions, but maybe other sponsors of his amendment will be able to intervene to clarify matters.
	I can see the attraction of holding referendums on issues that are politically significant in an area, so that local authorities can seek guidance. Even if they were not binding, they would at least create a debate, and the local authority could take into account the views expressed.
	Proposed subsection (5) of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment sets out the local authorities that it would apply to, including
	“the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority”.
	I wish to ask the amendment’s supporters whether, under the regulations and rules to be laid before Parliament designing the mechanisms and ground rules for referendums, as mentioned in proposed subsection (11), universal suffrage would apply in the case of the common council of the City of London. In other words, will it be one person, one vote, or will businesses be able to purchase votes and outvote local residents, as they currently can? Referendums could enhance local democracy, but I do not want us to enhance the power of businesses to control the lives of residents with the City of London corporation area.

Martin Vickers: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My view—I can speak only for myself—is that democracy means one person, one vote, and that that would apply whether in the City of London or elsewhere.

John McDonnell: That is incredibly helpful, because although amendment (a) might not be pressed to a vote, the House in due course—fairly rapidly—will need to look at how undemocratic the City of London corporation actually is.
	There are numerous examples of when a referendum in the City of London on the basis of universal suffrage—one person, one vote—would enable residents to address some of the abuses of the system that take place currently. If people want an example of those abuses, they should read the front page of The Guardian today. The City of London corporation has applied City cash—anything up to £100 million in local authority funding that is never audited or publicised; that completely lacks any form of transparency to local residents or the rest of the electorate in both the corporation area or elsewhere; and that is never investigated—to enhance a property development on the edge of the corporation area in Hackney. That also enhances the value of properties owned by Hammerson, which employs the lord mayor of the City of London corporation. A referendum in the City of London area could valuably take place on that matter. Residents could vote on whether it is appropriate for the City of London to enter into developments of that sort.
	The Hackney example is not the only one; there was the Spitalfields development and opposition from the Barbican Association. The City of London corporation has ridden roughshod over the wishes of local residents to enhance the profits of businesses which employ council men on the corporation. If the hon. Member for Richmond Park is suggesting that the rules and regulations made under proposed subsection (11) of amendment (a) would ensure universal suffrage in the City of London corporation, it would be a major breakthrough for democracy in London.
	I hope that the amendment is pressed to a Division if we gain assurances from all who have tabled the amendment that that is what it means. Even if we cannot use the amendment to prise open democracy in the City of London corporation, there will be other opportunities. Hon. Members from all parties should try to place this matter firmly on the agenda again, because allowing
	businesses to have the vote and to ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents in the corporation area is 21st-century abuse of power and democracy.

Andrew Stunell: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, with plenty of interest added by Members’ personal experiences.
	I appreciate the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) not to press amendment (a) to a Division. He will have seen in the course of the debate that the force is not with him, although he has raised a number of interesting aspects, which I am sure he will ensure are kept in front of the House in the years to come.
	Other hon. Members have raised a wide range of issues, and perhaps the most persistent raiser of issues was the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who is not in the Chamber. This part of the Bill applies to local authorities; it does not attempt, and it never did attempt, to regulate community groups, neighbourhood forums or other non-governmental organisations. However, I remind the House that there is still a requirement on anybody spending public money to give a proper account of that spending and to be held accountable, if necessary in the courts, should they fail to do so. On the wider duty on anybody spending public money, the introduction of the equalities duty provides a substantial safeguard and remedy for those who feel hard done by as a consequence. I hope that the House will accept that as the right basis on which to proceed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) told us a shaggy bear story, but hidden behind it were some important observations, one of which was about the present system’s extensive capacity for creating trouble for council members going about their lawful business and trying to serve their community. He referred to a case in which essentially he was being bullied by a developer because of views he had expressed on a planning application. I am happy to tell him that, quite apart from our abolition of the Standards Board, our abolition of the pre-determination legislation, which is also right at the front of the Bill, will put in place a safeguard in such situations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) drew attention to the hard work done in the House of Lords, not least by our Liberal Democrat colleagues. Government Members acknowledge the fruitful dialogue in the Lords, which I believe has produced a much improved Bill. She suggested that it might be appropriate for us to return to the standards regime and monitor its performance after a couple of years. More broadly, the Government have said that they want to monitor the impact of legislation as time goes by, and I hope that she will understand that the House always has the capacity to return to matters. No doubt the Select Committee and others will keep an eye not only on that provision in the Bill, but on all the others.
	I heard the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), particularly on police and police commissioners. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for decentralisation, has recently written to my hon. Friend about that matter, and I know that
	the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has also offered to liaise with him. I assume that he will want to take up that offer. He made several observations about what would happen in the United States, but I have reason to suspect that he is not in favour of introducing a federal system in the United Kingdom. In default of a federal system, we have to manage our own resources of governance.
	On council tax referendums, I made the point in my introductory remarks that we are replacing a top-down limitation on what councils can spend and raise from the council tax with a process controlled by the electorate—the ones who pay for it—which is how local accountability is supposed to work in our democratic system. As those who did an A-level in this area will know, that is what we are all taught happens, but what has not happened for many years. We are changing a top-down financial control system to a bottom-up control system. In the eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, that might not be perfect, but I hope that he would accept that it is more than just a small notional improvement.

Mark Reckless: It might be that for local authorities we are just about doing as the Minister states, but it is not the case for the area of policing that I raised. The letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely unsatisfactory, and the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has not happened. Importing the Localism Bill into the police framework makes a complete dog’s breakfast of the precept setting and contradicts the coalition agreement and last year’s “Policing in the 21st Century” White Paper.

Andrew Stunell: I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend say that. Local people have as much right to take a view on excessive police precept increases as they do on increases in any other sector of local government. I believe that the provisions we have are right. I hope that he is not spurning the offer of a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, because he might find it more productive than he evidently fears it would be.
	A number of other hon. Members contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who eloquently pointed out that he, too, had been the victim of a vexatious complaint. He urged the Government to impose no limits at all on council tax, which should depend entirely on the views of councillors. That suggests that he perhaps does not recall that in earlier days that was the case. What we have is a system of accountability for financial decision making that is a huge improvement on the current top-down version, and one that I would ask him to observe in practice over the next few years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) supported the general thread of amendment (a), standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but as I think we have agreed, that is a matter for a different day.
	With his customary skill, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) found a way of introducing a completely different topic to the debate—a
	topic that I have no doubt he will bring back to the House on many future occasions, albeit perhaps in more propitious circumstances.
	That brings me to the remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I have to say to the House that there is some history here, because in times long gone, she and I were both members of Chester city council. I therefore know that many of her remarks were made with her tongue firmly in her cheek, as they certainly were in past days too. I just wonder whether there were two missing words from what she said—those two words were “thank you”—because her entire speech consisted of agreeing that the amendments that we are discussing are exactly the right ones to make and great improvements to the Bill.
	I notice that the hon. Lady picked out my Liberal Democrat colleagues as being particularly egregious when it comes to making complaints. Indeed, a number of other Members in this debate have considered which political party is the worst. Let me tell the House that 80% of complaints to the Standards Board come from parish councils, on which, by and large, there is no political party representation. That, of course, is part of the scandal of the whole process. When I recently spoke at the annual conference of the parish clerks association—[ Laughter . ]I have become accustomed to a more exotic style of life. I put it to those at the conference, and they agreed, that had the introduction of the regime been beneficial, the behaviour of parish councils should have improved. What actually happened was a rising tide of complaints and no evidence at all that the regime improved standards. The aim of having a standards board was to improve standards, not simply to generate complaints.
	I got a hint from the hon. Lady, and also from her hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), that if they had their way, they would return to a centrally determined quango doing exactly the same thing as the Standards Board. I have to say that hankering after that quango is not the way ahead. If she is concerned about the Bill not being localist enough, she has a slightly peculiar way of showing it.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned pay accountability and transparency, and I think that she was welcoming what we have done. I want to pick up one of the points that she made. She said that she regretted that councils would not be compelled to pass the same duty on to outside organisations that were in receipt of council funding to deliver their services. I must point out to her that the legislation gives them the power to do that if they choose to do so, but it does not compel them to do so. I would just remind her that that is localism. We believe that that is exactly the right balance to ensure that local authorities have a framework in which they must operate, and a framework that they may apply to others who provide services for them.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned local non-binding referendums, and she was characteristically generous. May I point out that her suggestion that I might not have survived comes ill from a team that started off with three people in Committee and has now been completely reconfigured, and that she herself is a newcomer to it? Those of us who worked through the Committee and Report stages know the hard work that went in and the efforts that have been made to achieve a better Bill.
	The Bill will lift the burden of bureaucracy from councils. It will free them up, the better to serve their local communities. It will give local authorities greater
	control over their governance and less unjustifiable meddling by central Government. The changes made in the Lords take the reforms further, strengthen our provisions and sweep away even more of the deadening prescription and regulation that has for far too long constrained local authorities. I commend all the Lords amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment 14 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 15 to 49 agreed to , with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 23, 29, 40 and 49 .

Clause 31
	 — 
	Power to require local or public authorities to make payments in respect of certain EU financial sanctions

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That the House agrees with Lords amendment 50.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 51 to 94, 227, 228, 230, 234, 241, 244, 246, 247, 250, 252 to 254 and 260.

Greg Clark: The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) should count himself lucky to have had an invitation from the parish clerks. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) recently spoke at the annual general meeting of the British Toilet Association. I gather that he was flushed with success after making that speech.
	I approach the Dispatch Box with some trepidation, because I was about to say that we had achieved “consensus in the House of Lords”, but on the basis of the earlier contribution from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), I fear that all six of those words make her see red. It seems that this Chamber should make a unilateral declaration of independence from the House of Lords, that nothing good can come from there, and that all decisions have to be made here. So I should be careful. As for consensus, the hon. Lady would pick a fight in an empty room. She managed to be warlike on amendments with which she wholeheartedly agreed, so goodness knows how we are going to get on with this group. None the less, we have achieved a degree of consensus and listened to the representations that were made in our own Public Bill Committee and in the other place.
	We need to devolve power to local authorities, but there is clearly a risk that when we do, the powers that formerly resided with central Government could expose the nation to the risk of infraction proceedings if they put us in breach of EU obligations. This was a matter that needed to be addressed. It is only fair that council tax payers should not pay for poor behaviour on the part of local authorities in areas other than their own. That was the purpose of introducing the provisions on EU fines. We have had some useful conversations about those.
	The concerns raised both in Committee and in the other place were that Ministers should not be the prosecutor, judge, jury—and, in some cases, the co-defendant too—on some of those matters. Thanks to representations from the Local Government Association and the Greater London Authority, we have thought carefully and hard about how we can allay some of those concerns.
	I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the work of the late Sir Simon Milton, who, in evidence to the Localism Bill Committee when we first met, not only raised concerns about those procedures, but suggested a way forward that would satisfy all our concerns. He went away with his officials and reflected on that. During that process, very sadly, Sir Simon died. All of us in this place greatly regret his passing. We have appreciated his good counsel in these matters over the years. His colleague Daniel Moylan took up the work that Sir Simon had begun, and the fruit of that work is reflected in the Lords amendments, particularly amendments 57, 234 and 246. They provide that there should be a new stage of designation for authorities that might be subject to a fine.
	I owe particular thanks to Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie, who introduced amendments to that effect in the other place. What these amendments will require is that Ministers should designate any authority that might be at risk of fines by affirmative order. Such an authority can be identified only if the infraction is the responsibility of the local authority, only if the actions follow its designation, and only in relation to specific infraction cases. There should be no retrospectivity.
	The second set of amendments involve the creation of an independent advisory panel before any fines can be recovered from a local authority. Baroness Gardner of Parkes suggested this approach in amendment 58. It would mean a public report being made to the Minister by an independent panel, and it would include a fair apportionment of the culpability of any local authority so fined.
	Amendments 59 et al enable the local authority to plan how it would meet the costs, and it is clear through these amendments that the authority’s responsibility for any fines ends when its culpability ends. The fines cannot continue beyond the point at which the authority has corrected its behaviour.
	Some minor and technical amendments cover non-devolved matters in devolved areas. They proceed with the full agreement of each of the devolved Administrations. There are mirror powers for Welsh Ministers to pass on fines in their own area.
	These changes sent to us by the House of Lords deliver on our commitment to introduce fines for councils only when they are responsible for the United Kingdom being fined, only when they can remedy the situation, and only when they can afford to pay. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Helen Jones: I am sorry that the Minister, who we all know is from the soft south and cannot deal with stroppy northern women—

Greg Clark: I am moved to tell the hon. Lady that I was born and bred in Middlesbrough, and that no resident of that fine town has ever been described as being of the soft south.

Helen Jones: I stand corrected. I should have said that the Minister has probably spent too long down in the south. I am now going to surprise him, however, by agreeing with him. The worry about the original measures was that they risked imposing fines on councils for matters over which they had no control. I think that has been corrected in the House of Lords, so we support the amendments.
	Lords amendment 50 agreed  to , with Commons financial privileges waived.
	Lords amendments 51 to 112  agreed  to , with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of  Lords amendments  54 to 60, 62, 64, 66 to 69, 72 ,  and 74 to 112 .

Clause 61
	 — 
	Council tax calculations by billing authorities in England

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 113.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 114 to 150, 236, 236, 251, 334 to 349, and 414 to 417.

Andrew Stunell: The amendments focus on the community right to challenge, on assets of community value, and on council tax referendums. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said at the beginning of our debates, the fundamental aim of the Bill is to shift power away from central Government and back to local communities. This part of the Bill enables decentralisation to be taken beyond the town hall, so that we can empower communities and enable them to play a bigger part in local life, whether their aim is to improve local services or to save treasured assets. Community rights will give communities more opportunities to do exactly that. When it is successful, it will give them a chance to compete to deliver those services themselves, using local knowledge, expertise and innovation to improve local services.
	Assets of community value will hand communities the initiative so that they can identify important local assets such as the old town halls, village shops and pubs that are of value to community life. There are already many good examples across the country of communities coming together to take over local pubs, shops, libraries and community centres. I think that all of us will have seen examples—if not in our constituencies, during visits to other areas. However, there are many more cases in which communities have missed out because they were not aware that a building was up for sale, or because when they discovered that, they lacked the time to make a viable bid. The new right will make it easier for communities to save local assets that are important to them, and will give them the time that they need to prepare a bid to take them when they come up for sale.
	We are also replacing central Government capping with council tax referendums. I had intended to say more about that, but I think that I covered it adequately in the last debate.
	A wide range of bodies have said that the powers and opportunities that we are providing are long overdue and very welcome. The National Association for Voluntary
	and Community Action, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Locality have all expressed the view that we are doing the right thing, and during the Bill’s passage Members on both sides of the House have expressed broad support for the principles of our reforms.
	However, Members wanted us to go further in some respects, and expressed concern about the details of a number of other aspects of our proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been in listening mode throughout. We have considered the points that have been made not just by Members of the House of Commons, but by peers and interested parties outside. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) played an important role in the debates that led to the amendments, and in the other place Lord Greaves, Lord Tope, Lord Patel of Bradford and Baroness Hamwee made helpful contributions.
	Although we had some excellent debates here in Committee and on Report, we did not think it appropriate to amend the provisions until we had had a chance to consider all the responses to the consultation carefully. That consultation closed in May. Following consideration of the responses and the debates in the House of Lords, we tabled amendments on Report intended to improve the workability of the provisions in the Bill and strengthen their effectiveness.
	On the right to challenge, the consultation and debates in both Houses demonstrated that there was an appetite to extend the reforms, but also that there were concerns about the prescription in the Bill. To address the former, amendment 115 makes it clear that the right could be extended to require a Minister or Government Department to consider expressions of interest. To address the latter concern, we have removed a number of delegated powers, particularly those allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe time scales associated with the right to challenge. Instead, under amendments 118 to 121 it will be for local authorities to set their own time scales, while having regard to factors to be set out in guidance.
	There are also a number of minor amendments to the right to challenge. I will not detain the House by describing them in detail, but, for example, we have made it clear that the definition of community body in the provisions does not include a public or local authority, and we have ensured that if the right is extended, it would continue to apply only to services provided in England.
	There has also been broad support for the principle of giving communities greater opportunities to identify assets of community value and more time to raise the funds. We have also had constructive discussions about improving the practical application of the provisions and avoiding overly detailed rules. I would particularly like to thank Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Lord Cameron of Dillington, Earl Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising for their contributions to improving these provisions.
	We have listened carefully, and amendments 122 to 126 define land of community value based on principal use for social well-being and social interests, including cultural, recreational and sporting interests. Amendments 127 to 130 make it clear that only a voluntary or community body with a local connection may nominate an asset to be listed by a local authority, which will safeguard against vexatious nominations by individuals. We have
	also improved the workability of these provisions by exempting certain types of relevant disposal: those where the community is not at risk of losing the asset. Amendments 140 and 144 exempt several types of relevant disposals from the moratorium in the Bill. As a result, the provisions will not cover situations such as where a village shop is to change hands as a going concern and the community will still get the benefit of a shop, nor will they capture a situation where a transfer is made between family members or through inheritance or gifts. Further exempt disposals will be set out in regulations. Most importantly, we have ensured that groups will have enough time to raise funds to buy assets; that was a key concern of community groups.
	Amendments 141 to 145 specify that the interim moratorium will be six weeks, the full moratorium will be six months, and the protected period in which a further application cannot be made will be 18 months, starting from the first date. In other words, there will, in effect, be a 12-month moratorium period. We have also reduced the amount of prescription. Amendments 131, 132, 134 and 135 give local authorities greater freedom to decide how to administer and publicise lists of assets of community value in their local area. In summary, these amendments will ensure that the provisions give communities a powerful new tool to preserve assets of community value, while ensuring that we do not create unintended consequences.
	These reforms were welcomed by the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action and by the Country Land and Business Association. When both those organisations claim victory, it is clear that we must be doing something right. Finally, this group also contains a number of smaller technical amendments, which include provision for ensuring that levies made on local authorities by levying bodies are not part of the calculation on whether a council tax increase is excessive, and for ensuring that only residents, and not business voters, in the City of London are entitled to vote in a council tax referendum. I hope that that gives at least a little comfort to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Overall, I hope that hon. Members will agree that these amendments significantly improve the Bill and address issues of common concern, and so will agree to them unanimously.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Labour Members broadly support the amendments, which support some of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). This whole part of the Bill had to be substantially rewritten following discussions in this Chamber, in Committee and in the other place. Although it purported to give communities more power over their areas, it actually gave a lot more power to the Secretary of State to outline the time scale for local authorities to consider a transfer of community assets and on what those were. We are pleased, therefore, that a definition of land of community value has been put in the Bill and that some of the ridiculously prescriptive powers relating to the community right to bid have been removed or put where they should have been put—with local authorities. We are also pleased that that the amendments should enable local authorities to set and publish their own time scales for deciding on community expressions of interest. I hope that that is helpful to them and to the local communities that wish to take over assets.

John McDonnell: I shall be extremely brief. I wholeheartedly welcome this part of the Bill and the amendments proposed, but I would also welcome some advice from the Minister on the time scale for the implementation of the Bill and this bit of it. I shall quickly give a relevant example.
	In my constituency, a library has been closed and a new one opened. I did not get everything I wanted, but I congratulate the local authority on opening the new library. For some time, there has been an expectation—indeed, promises have been made by the local authority in the past—that the previous and now redundant library would be handed over for community use. Despite a petition signed by more than 4,000 people urging the local authority to provide this facility for community use in some form, the London borough of Hillingdon is now rushing ahead with its sale. Last week, the authority actually gave itself planning permission for housing, despite the fact that I appeared at the petition hearing with the petition and directly quoted words of wisdom from the Secretary of State. He had cited a library being made redundant as an example of exactly what this Bill is intended to address.
	So I ask the Minister about the London borough of Hillingdon’s undue haste to give itself planning permission for housing and to sell the site off to pre-empt the coming into force of this Bill. Will he assure me that something can be done to persuade the authority to listen to the local people and enable us to use this Bill for the purposes for which it was intended: to empower local people in respect of just this sort of asset? I would welcome any assurance that he could give, any advice that he might wish to render to the London borough of Hillingdon and anything that he can say about the importance of the community being listened to on such examples.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) to the Front Bench and welcome her welcome for the amendments that we have introduced. I understand that she obviously has to go through the ritual motions of accusing us of U-turns, but what we actually have is a Government who are listening and ready to share their learning with the House. We did not come to the House with a finished product, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear from the moment the Bill was produced. I believe that the Bill has been improved at each stage of its progression and has now reached a state of perfection.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has, as ever, skilfully brought to the House an issue of great importance to him and his constituents. I can tell him that, subject to events tonight, the Bill will go for Royal Assent later in the year and will come into force next year. He will not be surprised to hear that it does not contain any retrospective provisions and I am afraid there is nothing I can say that will make it retrospective. He invites me to join him in criticising the council for its decisions. That is his right and prerogative as a constituency MP and I am pleased that he is doing so but, in the spirit of localism, as a Minister I am bound to say that these are matters for local decision making, although I might have a view about the decision it took.

John McDonnell: May I clarify that I am not enticing the Minister to criticise the local authority? However, there is an issue here. A Bill is coming to its conclusion and will shortly be enacted. Should not true a local authority taking a reasonable decision and taking into account all relevant factors take into account the fact that the Government intend the Bill to be implemented rapidly? Should it not therefore act in the spirit of the Bill?

Andrew Stunell: Perhaps it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the report of this exchange in Hansard is drawn to the attention of the council leader.
	I can add a little more information about the timetable. The implementation of the rights requires secondary legislation in accordance with the procedures agreed by the House. Affirmative resolution measures require parliamentary time and consultation and we cannot prejudge exactly what the outcome will be. However, preparatory work is well in hand and the ministerial team certainly intend to get all these rights not only on the statute book but make them effective and active in local communities as soon as possible.

Nick Raynsford: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been in his seat long. He really ought to think about whether he wants to make this intervention. Is it crucial?

Nick Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Then I shall allow it.

Nick Raynsford: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know that the Government have taken the view, in relation to the next part of the Bill on planning, that their intended policy should be a material consideration for local authorities when assessing planning matters. Would it not be appropriate to do exactly the same in respect of the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Should it not be made clear to the council that the imminent implementation of this measure should be a material consideration when deciding the future of the library?

Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty. As he knows, the material consideration is a matter for the courts, not for interpretation by the Government. Of course, it is open to the local authority to take account of forthcoming legislation and, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will point out, that might provide an opportunity for it to move ahead of the change just as much as it might incline it to wait for the measure to be implemented. As ever, one should be careful what one wishes for in this place.
	Lords a mendment  113 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
	Lords amendments 114 to 150 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 114, 115, 131, 148 and 150.

Clause 94
	 — 
	Abolition of regional strategies

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 151.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 152 and 153.
	Lords amendment 154, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 155 and 156.
	Lords amendment 157, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 158 to 165, 237, 238, 240, 257, 262, and 350 to 368.
	Lords amendment 369, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 370, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 371 to 382, and 418 to 425.

Greg Clark: Among the areas where centralisation has increased over the years is in the planning system. The regional spatial strategies, whatever their intentions, clearly took power from local communities. We made good progress in Committee in addressing the replacement for regional strategies in dealing with larger than local matters. The Bill introduces more opportunities for neighbourhoods through neighbourhood planning, and brings in compulsory pre-application scrutiny.
	As we have worked through, we have established a good deal of common ground. The Committee debate focused on the duty to co-operate. Informed by the Royal Town Planning Institute and discussions across the Front Benches, we listened to the Committee and, as we indicated on Report, made various changes that have been reflected in the Bill as it left the House. We said on Report that the neighbourhood planning section would be amended in the House of Lords. We considered carefully suggestions made from all parts of the House, and the amendments before us today reflect that.
	It is important to say that we want to see more planning, not less. We feel that over time the imposition from above has stood in the way of local communities expressing their own vision of the future of their community. That is what we want to give them a greater chance to do. At the heart of that is the need to achieve sustainable development. Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides a duty on those preparing local plans to do so with the aim of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
	Amendment 370 extends that principle to neighbourhood planning, with an explicit condition that it should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The duty to co-operate will require that public bodies should co-operate effectively on sustainable development. We debated in Committee whether to include the definition of sustainable development on the face of the Bill or whether it should be in guidance. I made a commitment to think seriously about that, which we did. We had various discussions in the other place involving Members on both sides of the House.
	Let me say at the outset that there is no issue in principle with the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in
	their amendment (a). It reflects the 2005 sustainable development strategy, which has not been repealed. In evidence not to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to which I shall be giving evidence later in the week, but to the Environmental Audit Committee I and a DEFRA Minister made it clear that the 2005 strategy remains extant and we have no difficulty with the content of it. Of course, that has been captured in previous guidance—PPS1 in particular—and was updated from the first iteration of the sustainable development strategy in 1999.
	There was a serious debate in the other place about whether the best place to reflect the shared view of sustainable development is on the face of the Bill, or whether that should be, as it always has been, in guidance. On Report there was some concern that a statutory definition makes it difficult to capture the full range of aspects of sustainability, which may include but go beyond some of the provisions in the sustainable development strategy. I happen to think, and I have said to the Environmental Audit Committee, that some of the thinking in the Natural Environment White Paper makes some helpful suggestions that one should be looking for a net gain for nature. It is important to be open to that.
	In the other place, Baroness Andrews, the chairman of English Heritage and a recent former planning Minister, made some of the same arguments about heritage. She said:
	“I feel strongly that one of the elements that is not in this amendment”—
	the amendment before us is similar or even identical to the one that was considered in the other place—
	“. . . is including something about our vital cultural and heritage needs, including those of future generations.”
	She went on to say that
	“one might add, for example, ‘meeting the diverse social, cultural, heritage needs of all people in existing and future communities and promoting well-being and social cohesion and inclusion’.”
	The noble Lady said that
	“if we are to debate the amendment”,
	the Minister should consider whether the definition could be sufficiently flexible to include
	“the new elements of the definition.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2011; Vol. 730, c. 1750.]
	I cite that as an example of someone who shares our good will on that point and has recent experience in government of planning and of some of the difficulties.

Joan Walley: I hear what the Minister says about Baroness Andrews, but the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report stated:
	“The Government agrees that we should put the pursuit of sustainable development right at the heart of the planning system’s objectives and operation, and that we should be clear about what this commitment means in practice.”
	How can they be clear about that if it is not in the Bill?

Greg Clark: I hope to convince the hon. Lady when I say more on that in a few minutes. As we are considering Lords amendments, I will reflect on the conclusions that were drawn after extensive debates on all these issues in the House of Lords and what its settled view was. Lord Howarth of Newport, a Labour peer, said:
	“Like other noble Lords I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt a full definition on the face of primary legislation because… the right place for that is guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1078.]
	The Opposition spokesman, Lords McKenzie of Luton, in summing up, said:
	“We accept that definitions are not going to be included in the Bill but I hope that at least we shall be able to get very strong assurances that there will be full definitions in the NPPF.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1076.]
	At the end of the debate, he said that he was happy to withdraw the same amendment because my noble Friend Baroness Hanham had
	“given the strongest degree of reassurance I have heard to date on the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1088.]
	A view was reached in the House of Lords on the basis of assurances that my noble Friend gave. I will not quote from some of the other reflections, but some colleagues there said that this went even further than they had expected.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Government are committed to a clear definition of sustainable development and think that policy is the right place for it. I have said clearly that we have no difficulties with the 2005 definition, which I think is ably reflected in the amendment. Hon. Members will know that I cannot pre-empt the consultation on the NPPF, but in all the deliberations we have had on the Bill my assurances about the Government’s good faith have always been reflected and brought to a final conclusion. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will bear that in mind.

Alison Seabeck: I am sorry to say that the frustration I felt in Committee is now overflowing. The Minister is talking about pre-empting things, but surely by having legislation before he has the policy he is pre-empting the whole process. Everything is back to front. How can we legislate without seeing the detail of the NPPF in its final form?

Greg Clark: That was considered in the House of Lords. These things have always been captured in policy. I could not have been clearer when I said that we have no difficulty with the 2005 strategy or its wording. A cogent case has been made—let me put it that way—for expanding and strengthening the definition in the NPPF. I hope that that demonstrates, on the basis of this House’s experience of the scrutiny of the Bill and the commitments the Government have made, that there is no difference in our commitment to the matter. Indeed, I have expressed a personal view that I think we could go a little further than the 2005 strategy. We will reflect on these contributions in the consultation on the NPPF and respond in due course.
	Let me say something about neighbourhood planning, because from the start we all agreed on our ambition to give communities greater opportunity to provide for a vision of their future at a level below the local planning authority. We had some debate about whether it should apply only in parished areas or whether it should be available to non-parished areas, and there was again a degree of consensus on the idea that it should be
	available to those parts of the country, including the place to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) referred, where there was no appetite for a town council but where, nevertheless, there might be an appetite for a neighbourhood plan.
	We agreed to strengthen the safeguards, concerns about which were expressed in this place, in the House of Lords. We have done that in Lords amendments 356 to 358 and 368. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington invoked The Dog and Duck as the test of a place that should be used for the gatherings of neighbours in contemplating a neighbourhood plan, and he suggested that its saloon bar should have a minimum of 21 people. In fact, I think he suggested fewer, but we thought there should be 21, and that found favour elsewhere. Such forums should be open as a right to every ward councillor, and it is important that democratically elected representatives should participate, and that neighbourhood planning should contribute to the social, environmental and economic benefit of the area.
	Lords amendment 370 introduces the sustainable development test for local planning. Plans, in their examination, will need to conform and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and the amendment also specifies that a neighbourhood plan can apply to all or part of a parish or neighbourhood area.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 369 would provide a statutory right for members of communities to comment. It is clearly important that people are able to express their views, but we regard the amendment as unnecessary, because Lords amendment 369 includes community consultation, with a requirement for a statement of consultation to go forward for examination, and we are consulting now on the regulations to introduce it.
	Opposition Front Benchers also introduced the proposal that businesses should be able to participate in making neighbourhood plans. Lords amendment 360 allows councils to designate business neighbourhoods that are wholly or largely occupied by businesses, but there will be a double lock: there will need to be two referendums, and if either the business community or the residential community objects, the matter will be for the local council to decide.
	The House of Lords has sent back various amendments on the community infrastructure levy, and we think it important that neighbourhoods retain a stake in the benefits and some contribution to the cost of hosting development, so there is a suggestion that a meaningful proportion of CIL be allocated to them. We will consult on what proportion that should be.
	We have considered the restrictions on the use of CIL in response to comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made. The House of Lords concluded that there should be greater flexibility in the use of CIL revenues for that proportion which goes to neighbourhoods, recognising that the effects of development on neighbourhoods are local and diverse, and that it should be possible to consider them.
	In considering CIL schedules, the independent assessor must already consider the viability of rates of community infrastructure levy, and we will provide statutory guidance, including an assessment that that should consider the delivery of affordable housing.
	The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington are therefore unnecessary and would remove some of the transparency that CIL offers. There would be a return to case-by-case deals, negotiated privately, which provide no greater benefit than sticking to section 106.
	There are some technical amendments on strategic planning. Lords amendments 151 to 155 allow the removal of regional strategies by an order laid by the Secretary of State, rather than through a provision to have their abolition commenced by order. We intend to lay orders revoking the regional strategies as soon as possible after Royal Assent, subject to the voluntary strategic environmental assessment in which we are engaged.
	Amendment 156 strengthens the test of soundness of the duty to co-operate, and amendment (a) deals with transitional arrangements. Again, I want to assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues that there will be transitional arrangements. In a system that is designed to advantage plan making, in the move from one system to another, it was always intended that we would not contemplate anything that does not allow local authorities to maintain their ability to plan for the future and make decisions in accordance with their needs. So there is no need for legislative measures. Such an approach can be delivered through policy, and we will set that out very clearly in our response to the consultation. I give that commitment.

Clive Betts: We on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government received much evidence on the important issue of transitional arrangements. Does the Minister accept that the purpose of transitional arrangements is to enable local authorities to adjust to the new planning regime that will eventually be implemented, and to give them time to do so properly? There will be detailed, thorough negotiations with the Local Government Association in trying to reach an agreement about what a proper length of time for that transitional arrangement should be.

Greg Clark: I concur with that.
	Overall, the amendments improve the Bill. I am grateful to their lordships for the time they spent scrutinising and approving them, and to all Members of this House and the other place who participated in initiating the amendments we have back with us today.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I want to try to deal with a number of issues arising from the Lords amendments very quickly indeed. I shall start with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 154 on transitional arrangements.
	As with many other key aspects of the Bill, hon. Members will know that discussions have already taken place in this House and in the other place about the need for some form of clear transitional arrangements to be specified in the Bill. In the early stages, it was evident that transitional arrangements were not at the forefront of the Government’s planning agenda but, as time has gone on, it has become increasingly apparent that, without them, the local planning system could be thrown into chaos and confusion.
	As such, it is worth trying one last time to convince the Government of the need to include transitional arrangements in the Bill. That seems particularly necessary
	because the arrangements are needed very soon. Therefore, the alternative of including them in the national planning policy framework when it is eventually published, which was raised in the other place, is not practical. Previous significant planning legislation in 2004 and 2008 put clear transitional arrangements in the legislation to assist local authorities in moving from one planning system to another. This Bill should do the same.
	I heard the Minister’s comments about amendment (a) to Lords amendment 157 on the community infrastructure levy, but Labour Members have grave concerns about the degree of prominence the Government are giving to the issue of unviability and the extent to which that might limit the application of the community infrastructure levy in practice. It is extremely important for there to be independent assessment of the developers’ costs whenever they are arguing unviability. We would like the Minister to consider the matter and if he does not address it in the Bill, to do so in the guidance that accompanies the Bill, so that such a situation does not occur.
	The amendment to Lords amendment 369 is very straightforward. In keeping with prescribed requirements, before a neighbourhood planning order can be submitted to the local authority, the amendment would require public consultation to take place. In particular, we want to make sure that community and voluntary organisations get a chance for their voices to be heard. Labour is very keen to ensure, wherever possible, that community and voluntary organisations are able to be fully represented and engaged in the planning process. We would like Lords amendment 369 to be strengthened if possible.
	I do not wish to go on at length about our amendment to Lords amendment 370, because we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the need for the Bill to have a definition of sustainable development. The current definition in the NPPF is not strong enough, and we would like the Minister to consider taking on board the definition in the 2005 sustainable development strategy. That is very important.
	We understand why neighbourhood business areas have been put into the Bill, but we are concerned to ensure that consultation on those areas includes local residential communities. I will finish my comments there because we would, if possible, like to get to vote on amendment (a) to Lords amendment 154 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 370.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome this Bill and these amendments as we pass powers and responsibilities away from Westminster to local authorities.
	There is sometimes a dissonance between the laws that we prescribe here in Parliament and their impact on the front line. I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions to clarify clause 94 and the abolition of the dreaded regional spatial strategies in relation to a constituency dilemma that we face in Bournemouth. Bournemouth borough council is currently drafting its core strategy—the local plan. That is the significant document of planning intent for the next few years but it is still subject to the old regional spatial strategy because the Bill has not passed into law. The RSS obliges councils to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Three locations have been earmarked for permanent sites in the proximity of the green belt in the northern
	part of my constituency. The locals are obviously concerned about this. We had a small debate about nimbyism earlier, but clearly Bournemouth borough council should now have the right to determine whether it wishes to pursue this instead of its being imposed on it by Westminster.
	I would argue that three Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity in a very quiet part of one single community is a bit much. The area is part of Bournemouth’s very small and diminishing green belt. This is also about sharing and quid pro quo—about assets we have in Dorset that are used by the wider conurbation. For example, we have a vibrant town centre, an airport, and incineration facilities. Bournemouth took the biggest hit as regards housing development following the numbers that were imposed on Dorset by the previous Government; most of the housing built in the county was built in Bournemouth. There is therefore a feeling in Bournemouth that we have already contributed, to some degree, to planning law and planning responsibility. There is therefore a question as to whether it is right for these Gypsy and Traveller sites to be imposed on the area as they have been.
	Clause 94 removes the regional spatial strategy, but the Bill is not yet law and the core strategy from Bournemouth borough council has to be submitted. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the removal of the RSS changes the obligations of all core strategies, that there will be an opportunity for councils right across the country to re-submit those core strategies once the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that this all sits well with the other legislation that is affected—the Housing Act 2004, which also covers provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites? I would be grateful for clarification on those issues. To confirm the feelings of residents, I am running a petition that I will shortly hand to the Minister with a collection of signatures to ensure that this message is understood. I look forward to his reply.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the Lords amendments and will comment on two aspects of them.
	I agree that transitional arrangements are of prime importance. I accept that they do not necessarily have to be in the Bill, but I urge the Minister to provide some clarity on them as soon as is practical because it is making planning difficult in many respects in local areas.
	Following on from the comments of hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), all Dorset councillors are currently consulting on potential Traveller sites. It will be helpful if there is timely clarity on the consultation on Traveller sites, so that councils are clear about their position.
	I have made much of the point that there should be a definition for sustainable development, preferably based on the 2005 definition. I have taken from the Minister tonight a clear indication that we will get a stronger definition of sustainable development and that it is likely to be in the national planning policy framework. I welcome that comment. Of course, I shall return to the Minister to make further comments if that is not the case.

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister looking to speak again?

Greg Clark: I am happy to.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Minister. If one pops the question, one is likely to get the answer.

Greg Clark: I am grateful, Mr Speaker; I do not know what to make of that comment. I will respond to a few of the points that have been made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods).
	I have been clear that there will be transitional arrangements and that we will ensure that they are produced in a timely way so that there is no difficulty with authorities preparing for the introduction of the national planning policy framework. That does not require an amendment. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham does not specify what the transitional arrangements should be. All it does is to elicit the commitments that I have given her tonight. I see that she is nodding. I hope that she accepts that and that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) takes the same view.
	On the community infrastructure levy, the regulations already require the independent assessment of viability when an authority considers a claim for CIL relief from a developer to be unviable, especially in the case of affordable housing. I give that commitment. If the hon. Member for City of Durham has any suggestion that the guidance is inadequate in any way I am happy to meet her to consider that, but that has not been our experience so far.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) knows that we recently concluded a consultation on Gypsy and Traveller policy. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that, but I would say that the abolition of the regional strategies puts clearly into the hands of local authorities the ability to assess the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities across the country. Of course, the changes that we have discussed tonight provide for a fairer system of enforcement, whereby a planning application that is introduced retrospectively does not stay the enforcement action, which has sometimes been the case.

Tobias Ellwood: Bournemouth borough council received legal advice encouraging it to continue with the legal process of going to consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) suggested. However, I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) that the legal advice given to his council was that it did not need to pursue that process because the intent of the Government was that the regional spatial strategy would be removed and that therefore the core strategies did not need to include Gypsy and Traveller sites. One council is being told one thing and another is being told something else.

Greg Clark: That is often the case with legal advice. This is a matter for the courts. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) pointed out that the weight given to emerging policy is a matter for decision makers. It is not possible, however tempting, for Ministers to direct decision
	makers on that point. Regional strategies have set out guidance to date, but it is for decision makers to decide how much weight they want to give to the Government’s intentions in revoking regional strategies.
	I shall conclude by saying a little about the definition of sustainable development. I think it is obvious to every Member who has participated in these debates that our intention is to reflect, through guidance, a stronger and more expansive definition. I have made it quite clear that the 2005 strategy offers a basis that has been commended to us by many respondents to the consultation. It is extant, and I have no difficulty with it. We may be able to go further in some respects, but it is clear and reflects the considered views of both Houses.
	The colleague of the hon. Member for City of Durham in the other place thought it was right to withdraw the Opposition amendment there on the basis of the same assurances. Given that, and given that the consultation has closed and it will not be much longer before she can see the outcome of our deliberations, I hope she will not press her amendment on the subject. I commend all the Lords amendments in this group to the House.
	Lords amendment 151 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 152 and 153 agreed  to .
	Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment  154 .—(Roberta Blackman- Woods .)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F)
	Lords amendment 154 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 155 to 441 agreed to , with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 157 to 165, 225, 226, 250 to 254, 257, 260, 294, 295, 302, 312, 334, 335, 337 to 344, 349, 371, 376, 377, 387, 389, 395, 399 to 402.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Coast Protection

That the draft Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 18(1) ),
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
	That Tom Blenkinsop be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Julie Hilling be added.—(James Duddridge.)

Committees

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 and 8 together.
	Ordered,

Communities and Local Government

That Steve Rotheram be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Bill Esterson be added.

Education

That Nic Dakin be discharged from the Education Committee and Alex Cunningham be added.—( Geoffrey Clifton-Brown  on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Teachers’ Pension Scheme

Nicholas Dakin: A couple of weeks ago, Andy Yeadon of John Leggott college and Stephen Buck and John Outhwaite of Frederick Gough school brought a petition to me that I should like to place before the House on their behalf and that of the other petitioners from John Leggott college and Frederick Gough school who have signed it.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of staff at John Leggott College, Scunthorpe, and Frederick Gough School, Scunthorpe,
	Declares that the Pet itioners note that the Teachers’  Pension Scheme, along with other schemes, was reformed in 2007 to ensure sustainability and viability for the long term, declares that the Pe titioners reject the Government’ s claim that such schemes are unaffordable and a drain on taxpayers, further declares that the Petitioners believe that proposed changes to public sector pensions, including those of teachers, lecturers, principles and head teachers working in maintained schools, academics, independent schools and teaching colleges are unjustified and declares that the Petitioners believe that continuing government changes to these pensions will be deeply damaging to staff recruitment, retention, mobility, morale and motivation and will jeopardise the education of all children and young people.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000974]

PATIENT SECURITY (MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

Nicky Morgan: I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to raise this important topic in the Chamber tonight. I should declare at the outset my position as a vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health.
	The Government’s recent mental health strategy stated that mental ill health represented up to 23% of the total burden of ill health in the UK, and that it was the largest single cause of disability. At least one in four adults will, at some point in their life, experience a period of mental ill health. For some, it may be a relatively mild, one-off episode. For others, the first episode will herald the start of a long-term relationship with the mental health services in all their guises. Such episodes, whether short term or long term, have a profound effect not only on the person suffering with a mental health condition but on their families and friends, many of whom will never have come into contact with these conditions or this part of the NHS before.
	In the most serious cases, a patient might spend a period of time in an acute care setting, either voluntarily or while being detained under the Mental Health Act for their own welfare and the welfare of those around them. At such times, the patient and their families and loved ones will expect the patient to be kept safe and secure while they are given the appropriate therapy and treatment to enable them to resume their place in our communities. That expectation, and the fact that it is sometimes not fulfilled, are the focus of this short debate tonight.
	In June 2010, shortly after I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough, I was approached by a constituent, Glyn Brookes, who told me about the tragic death of his daughter, Kirsty. I appreciate that the Minister is unlikely to be able to respond to this particular case, although I have sent his office a copy of the coroner’s report into Kirsty’s death. However, it is because of this case that I have ended up leading this debate tonight.
	Kirsty was a patient at the Bradgate unit at University Hospitals of Leicester. She was able to escape from the unit using the frame of an external door to help her. Her escape was not dealt with as it should have been, and she was able to commit suicide before either the hospital authorities or the police found her. This has clearly been devastating for the Brookes family, and I would like to pay tribute to them, and particularly to Mr Brookes who contacted me to tell me their story. I would also like to pay tribute to the excellent coroner whose report helped, I think, to answer the Brookes family’s questions about the tragedy. I should say that I have spoken to the former and current chairmen of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, which administers the unit, and I understand that work is ongoing to learn and act on the lessons of this case.
	As a result of the case being raised with me, I began to wonder how many other patients absconded each year from units run by our mental health trusts. I submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to all 58 of the mental health trusts in England, 57 of which
	have replied. The figures make grim reading. Before I go into them, however, I should say that this exercise has shown me that there is a real variety in the quality of record keeping at the trusts. There also seems to be a real difference in the way in which the term “abscond” is used by the trusts as a basis for recording the relevant information. I hope that the Minister and the Department will be able to help with this matter.
	The Mental Health Act 1983 defines “abscond” as when a patient who is liable to be detained under the Act
	(a) absents himself from the hospital without leave granted under section 17 above; or
	(b) fails to return to the hospital on any occasion on which, or at the expiration of any period for which, leave of absence was granted to him…; or
	(c) absents himself without permission from any place where he is required to reside in accordance with conditions imposed on the grant of leave of absence”.
	In responding to my request for information, some trusts used this definition, while others made the distinction between a patient who was “absent without leave”, “absent without explanation”, “missing” or escaped. In addition, some trusts use the terms “AWOL” and “abscond” interchangeably without definition or explanation. Other trusts used only “abscond”, but did not define what they meant by the term. Finally, some trusts provided the number of “incidents” of absconding, rather than the number of patients. Others did not make that distinction. For simplicity, however, the figures that I will now mention refer to the total number given for the five-year period that I asked about, and therefore do not differentiate the different types of absconding incident.
	My research showed that in the past five years about 40,500 incidents of absconding occurred, ranging from a total of three reported incidents for Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Partnership Trust to 3,891 for Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust. There is significant variation across the country, so clearly some trusts are doing things very differently from others. In the case of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, the total figure for the past five years is 386. I must stress caution in comparing those numbers. We could, in many cases, be comparing different things—although the overall effect of patients absconding is the same—simply because the trusts use their own definitions, despite the fact that the Department of Health has published its definitions of absconding and escaping.

Julian Lewis: I do not know where on my hon. Friend's list the Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust figures, but did she find any correlation between the quality of the infrastructure of the units and the numbers of people absconding? Did she find, for example, that a brand new unit, such as Woodhaven in my constituency, tended to have a lower rate of such problems? This is of particular interest to me, as that eight-year-old hospital is threatened with closure, and I have a debate on it later this week.

Nicky Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have seen the subject of his Adjournment debate later this week. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to go into that level of detail, but I shall come to the quality of care and to demonstrate that it has a huge impact on the absconding rate for patients. As I shall
	come on to mention, this is an issue on which the Department of Health and the trusts could work together. Interested Members or other interested parties should see the link between absconding and the quality of care given. There is no doubt that there are innovative ways of ensuring that patients do not feel the need to abscond, and that if they are outside the environment, of ensuring that they will come back because they know that they will receive therapeutic treatment.
	As I was saying, despite all the caveats, the numbers are simply too high for organisations that owe their patients a duty of care. The fifth agreed objective in the Government’s mental health strategy launched earlier this year stated:
	“Fewer people will suffer avoidable harm—people receiving care and support should have confidence that the services they use are of the highest quality and at least as safe as any other public service.”
	This is, of course, an objective that anyone who has an interest in any health service, but particularly mental health services, would want to see met. The fact is that guidance is already in place for mental health trusts and for those working within them to follow, although it would be fair to say that a lot of that guidance deals with how to react to an incident of absconding rather than offering concrete guidance on prevention. In the case of my constituent, the coroner expressly found that
	“it would appear that the hospital had a system and policies in place to protect and supervise Kirsty from harm but at all material times those caring for her did not follow those policies.”
	That is just not acceptable.
	The Minister will remember the long sessions earlier this year discussing the Health and Social Care Bill in Committee Room 10 upstairs—how could we forget them? One of the recurring themes was not just that we all want to see high-quality services but how we ensure our health and social care services are high quality and that everyone is focused on the primary objectives of the health system. Do we do so through inspections? Do we hope that everyone working within the health system works to their own high standards, as many thousands of employees surely do? Do we ensure that guidance is not only available but followed? And do we ensure that when things go wrong, as in the case of my constituent, thorough investigations follow and lessons are learned? Surely it must be a combination of all those things.
	As I mentioned, hospital wards are meant to be places of therapy, but too often, especially in the case of mental health wards, they are anything but. In a recent report, the Centre for Social Justice said:
	“Hospitals tend to be untherapeutic and dangerous places”.
	In helping me to prepare for this debate, Mind sent me a note saying:
	“The quality of care quite clearly has an impact on a patient’s decision to abscond. Unfortunately, as Mind’s forthcoming acute and crisis care campaign will show, people in inpatient settings often experience substandard quality, with no meaningful activities, little or no interaction with staff or each other, and at worst, lack of safety, abuse and coercive treatment.”

Daniel Poulter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem—she has done well in bringing this debate before us this evening—is the fact that people often become labelled when they are in a mental health care setting, whereas
	what we need to do if we are to deal with the issue properly is to break down and challenge those labels, so that the patient is not seen just as a mental health patient but as a person? All the therapies and preventive measures she is talking about relate to that issue. If we can get that right, we will be able to look at people and treat them in the way that they deserve—with respect, which will help to prevent the episodes of absconding or escape that my hon. Friend mentions.

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a qualified NHS practitioner and knows far more about these matters than I do. Everything that he has said confirms the fact that we must not forget that people are at the heart of all cases of this kind—not just patients, but their families. The sooner patients receive good therapeutic treatments and can resume their place in society, the better. My hon. Friend made another important point: for too long a stigma has been attached to mental ill-health conditions, and people do not talk about them. I hope that tonight’s debate will mark the beginning of more open discussion of such conditions, in the House and beyond.
	Kirsty's father told me that he believed that there was nothing to do at the unit where she was being treated. He said that there were no constructive therapies.
	Rethink Mental Illness and the Royal College of Psychiatrists drew my attention to a 2010 report that had been prepared as part of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness. According to the report, between 1997 and 2006 absconders accounted for 25% of all in-patient suicides and 38% of suicides that occurred off the wards. Absconding patients were also significantly more likely to have been under high levels of observation, but clinicians reported more problems in the observation of those who had absconded owing to ward design or other patients in the ward. The report made three recommendations for improvement: that staff need to pay better attention, not just to patients but to ward exits; that observation methods should improve, as there was little evidence regarding the protective effect of close observation, and high levels of observation may be ineffective for people who are intent on leaving the ward; and that there should be an increased focus on engagement and support by staff when patients are admitted.
	However, as Mind pointed out to me, there is evidence that when wards take a more innovative approach to in-patient care, there are fewer incidences of both aggression and absconding. There is already an incentive for our mental health trusts to do better in terms of the treatment and care that they offer to in-patients.
	Let me end by drawing all those thoughts together. First, we need more research in order to understand the scale of the problem. The information that I have obtained is, I hope, a good start, but I think that the Department could insist that trusts use one set of definitions so that numbers can be properly compared, and that trusts with low incidences of absconding could share their experiences with those whose absconding rate is very much higher. The Department could also insist on publication of the information that I had to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act.
	Secondly, trusts should not only follow existing guidance, but work out how they do their best to prevent patients, when they are at their most vulnerable, from absconding
	and causing harm to themselves. My office did not have to look very far to find seven newspaper reports about patients who had absconded this year. Six of those cases tragically ended with the patients taking their own lives, and in one case the patient killed someone else. I believe that only by encouraging trusts to take those steps will the Department stand a chance of fulfilling the fifth objective in its laudable mental health strategy.
	Finally, I should like us all to remember that at the heart of this are usually very ill people and their families. Mr Brookes said to me in July this year, “We trusted the system. We paid our taxes, and we expected the best care for those who are at their most vulnerable.”
	We talk a lot in the House of Commons about physical health outcomes, but the time has come for mental health to get a proper look in. As someone speaking at one of the all-party meetings on mental health said, “We all have mental health; it is just that some people’s is better than that of others.”
	We are talking about people, so there are no absolutes, and there will always be those who are determined to take their own lives, but I hope that tonight, by focusing on one part of the mental health system—the security of patients being treated in hospital settings—the House can begin to make clear its desire to see real parity between physical and mental health conditions in the context of funding and treatment. I believe that if we do not do that, we will be storing up huge trouble for the country, and there will be more tragic deaths of patients like Kirsty which could perhaps be prevented.

Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate, and on the thoughtful way in which she set out her case. Let me begin my speech where she ended hers. The coalition Government are totally committed to securing parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Quite simply, that is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue. We are determined for it to happen as part of the strategy that we are currently delivering and the changes currently taking place.
	I am well aware of the tragic incident to which the hon. Lady referred, and which was undoubtedly the spur for the debate. I also thank her for sharing the coroner’s report with me. I am keenly aware of the fact that the trust involved in this sad case fully accepts the coroner’s verdict and has undertaken an overhaul of its patient security arrangements. It is important for public confidence in the system that lessons are learned and actions are taken to improve patient safety and service quality.
	The coalition Government are committed to patient safety. It is a high priority in our strategies and in the outcomes on which we are judging the NHS. Our cross-Government mental health strategy, “No health without mental health”, includes two core objectives to which I wish to draw attention: ensuring that people who are acutely ill receive safe, high-quality care in an appropriate environment, and thereby ensuring that fewer people suffer avoidable harm. The NHS outcomes framework also prioritises patient safety and emphasises treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
	My hon. Friend rightly referred to the invaluable work done by the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. Although the suicides rates in England have been at a historical low and are much lower than those of most of our European neighbours, the most recent figures, dating back to 2009, show that there are still about 4,400 suicides in England; that is one suicide every two hours.
	Over the past decade, good progress has been made in reducing the suicide rate in England. However, there has been a slight rise in the last couple of years. It is therefore important that we maintain vigilance. We know from experience that suicide rates can be volatile as new risks emerge. That is why we recently completed a national consultation on our suicide prevention strategy. We are considering the responses received, and intend to publish the final strategy next year.
	The draft strategy aimed to set out a broad and coherent approach to suicide prevention and to helping us sustain, and reduce further, the relatively low rates of suicide in England. In particular, it sets out to reduce the suicide rate in the general population and to provide better support and information to those bereaved or otherwise affected by a suicide.
	Substantial improvements have already been made in in-patient services. The most recent national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide was published in July 2011. It shows that the long-term downward trend in in-patient suicides continues. In 1997 there were 214 in-patient suicides, falling to 94 by 2008. That is still 94 too many, so there is still more to be done.
	I applaud my hon. Friend on her initiative in gathering the statistics she has presented to the House. However, she is right to sound a note of caution about how the figures might be interpreted, and what they reveal to us. For example, information about the length of time for which patients are missing or the level of risk that they pose either to themselves or to other people is relevant to gauging the true scale of the problem on which she seeks to persuade the Government to take action.
	There are a wide variety of reasons for recorded unauthorised absences. These include situations that pose minimum risk to the patient or the public, such as a delay in return to hospital from authorised leave because of a missed or delayed bus. We could be talking about a delay of no more than a couple of hours before some patients return safely to their unit. However, that return has to be recorded, even if it is for just a matter of a couple of hours.
	Recent statistics from the confidential inquiry show that between 2004 and 2008 the number of suicides per year by patients who have absconded from mental health services has dropped by more than 50%, from 50 cases to 21 cases per year. That is a substantial improvement, but it is still 21 cases too many.
	That is why we are not complacent. We know that a significant number of suicides still occur during a period of in-patient care in spite of the improvements. Managing risk effectively is therefore essential, and the confidential inquiry collects and analyses the detailed clinical information on all suicides and homicides committed by someone with mental illness, and more latterly also on sudden and unexplained deaths of psychiatric in-patients. It also makes recommendations for improvements, which goes to the heart of my hon. Friend’s representations
	tonight. Its December 2006 report sets out some compelling statistics—for example, that 27% of in-patient suicides occurred after the patient left the ward without permission. Those deaths were clustered in the first seven days after an admission.
	In mental health services, respect for the patient’s wishes must at all times be balanced with the concern for the individual’s safety and well-being. There is no doubt that that balancing act can, and does at times, present significant challenges for services. However, the solution to the problem does not have to be heavy-handed or coercive in its approach. A significant body of research, guidance and best practice has demonstrated practical strategies that can be implemented and can help to reduce significantly the number of people going missing. Such strategies include: early assessment; ensuring that staff begin to form a meaningful, therapeutic and collaborative relationship with patients straight away; understanding the factors that trigger a decision to leave the ward, such as a disturbed environment or an incident affecting the patient; recognising that patients will have social responsibilities such as paying bills or ensuring that their property is secure—staff need to identify these issues early to prevent anxiety and stress that may lead to the patient choosing to leave—and making greater use of technology, such as CCTV or swipe cards, to observe and control ward entry and exit.
	Key to the successful delivery of those approaches will be the ongoing development of an acute specialist work force with the right skills and attitudes, and a culture of inquiry and service improvement based on evidence and regular service user and carer feedback. The law is clear in the obligations it places on services. The Mental Health Act 1983, to which my hon. Friend referred, sets out the legal provisions relating to keeping patients in legal custody and bringing them back if they abscond. The Mental Health Act code of practice is equally explicit in the guidance it gives to services about the systems and processes that should be in place to safeguard detained patients. Hospital managers should ensure that there is a clear written policy about the action to be taken when a detained patient, or a patient on a supervised community treatment order, goes missing. These policies should, in turn, be agreed with other agencies, such as the police and ambulance services, which have significant roles to play in safeguarding patients who are absent without leave.
	Just last year, it was confirmed for the first time that the detaining authorities would be required by statutory regulation to notify the Care Quality Commission, without delay, of any absence without leave of any person detained or liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act. A failure to take adequate measures to keep a detained patient safe from fatal harm is potentially a breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The CQC asks services that are designated as low, medium or high security, and psychiatric intensive care units, to notify it of all incidences of absence without leave. There are different reporting requirements depending on the security level of the service. I can tell my hon. Friend and others who are listening to this evening’s debate that the CQC will be reporting its first round of these statistics next month. The CQC monitors trends in absence without leave and has followed up with the particular providers in relation to specific
	incidents or patterns of absences. The CQC recommends that providers monitor and review absences without leave to understand why patients go absent and to help develop strategies to address these identified issues.
	My hon. Friend identified concerns about what she described as the variation that she encountered in the definitions that appeared to be being used by different trusts when she undertook her freedom of information requests. I can, however, assure her that the definitions of “escape”, “attempted escape”, “abscond”, “failure to return” and “absent without leave” are applied consistently in mental health services. Indeed, most of those definitions relate to the three-part description that she listed. I suspect that the differences in the returns she received are due to the mixture in the type and size of mental health services within one trust, and therefore the mixture of type and number of absences reported. For instance, a trust may include a high-secure hospital, two medium-secure units and also low-secure and non-secure mental health services. The numbers from that trust may give us no understanding of the type of risk of the absences recorded. That is why my hon. Friend is right to say that we need good data collection in this area, and that is why we have asked the CQC to collect those data in such a way that we can meaningfully segment them to understand what is going on. I shall write to her about the statistics that she has collected.
	The Government believe that people with acute mental health needs have a right to receive the care and support they need in a safe and comfortable environment in which they are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. As my hon. Friend has said, there is a cross-Government mental health programme in place to drive whole system and cultural change in mental health services. However, this cannot and should not be seen as solely the Government’s responsibility. The essential building blocks are in place but, as always, the responsibility for the quality and safety of front-line care crucially depends on three things. First, providers have a duty of care to each individual for whom they are responsible—ensuring that services meet individual needs and that there are systems in place to make sure that services are effective, efficient and deliver high-quality care. Secondly, the regulator is responsible for assuring the quality of the system itself. Thirdly, the commissioners are responsible for securing the care that meets people’s needs.
	My hon. Friend was absolutely right to bring this important debate before the House, and she was also right to point out that we often debate issues of physical health in the House but rarely debate mental health issues except in extremis. I assure her that the Government are determined to invest in mental health services to ensure that more therapies and therapeutic services are available. Indeed, that is why we are investing in talking therapy services. It is important that with mental health we look at the whole-life course, intervene earlier to provide more preventive services, and invest in services that deliver dignified outcomes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and allowing us to shed some light on those important issues.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.